UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Class  Book  Volume 


Ja  O9-20M 


A HISTORY 

OF  THE 

AMERICAN  TARIFF 

1789-1860 


EUGENE  C.  LEWIS 


CHICAGO 

CHARLES  H.  KERR  AND  COMPANY 
56  Fifth  Avenue 
1896 


Copyright  1896,  by 
Charles  H.  Kerr  & Company 


Unity  Library,  No.  54.  Monthly,  $3.00  per  year.  February,  1896. 

Entered  at  the  Postoffice,  Chicago,  as  second-class  matter. 


33^, 

L5?h 


1¥ 


:'>4 


^ CONTENTS. 

^ I.  The  First  Tariff  Act j 

11.  Hamilton  and  the  Tariff 29 

in.  Jefferson's  Position 

IV.  The  Act  of  1816 

V.  The  Act  of  1824 

VI.  Jackson  and  the  Tariff.— The  “Woolens  Bill.”— 

The  Harrisburg  Convention 

Q ^ II.  The  Tariff  and  Nullification yg 

toVIII.  The  Compromise  with  Nullification 120 

^ IX.  The  Walker  Tariff  and  the  Act  of  1857 137 

^ppendix  A.- -Tariff  Laws,  1S61-8.3 149 

I (P Appendix  B.  Rates  on  Total  Importations 152 



i 

\ 't 


PREFACE. 


This  sketch  of  the  American  tariff  does  not  give 
any  new  facts  in  the  history  of  that  subject  during 
the  period  covered.  It  is  only  a gathering  together 
of  some  of  the  main  events  of  that  history.  It  is 
written  from  the  point  of  view  of  no  political  party. 
And  it  closes  with  the  opening  of  the  Civil  War 
period  because  that  was  the  beginning  of  a new  era. 
The  legislation  from  1789  until  i860  was,  strictly 
speaking,  experimental  in  character,  and  as  a result 
it  was  continually  changing  from  a policy  of  protect 
tion  to  one  of  revenue  only,  or  the  reverse.  It  re- 
quired all  these  years — almost  three-quarters  of  a 
century — for  the  country  to  decide  which  of  these 
policies  it  really  wished  to  adopt  and  retain.  But 
comparing  its  experience  under  the  one  with  that 
under  the  other,  it  turned  to  the  policy  of  protection 
and  has  adhered  to  it  for  a period  now  half  as  long 
as  the  experimental  one.  New  tariff  laws  making 
various  changes  have  during  this  time  been  passed, 
it  is  true.  But  the  principle  of  a tariff  for  the  pro- 
tection of  home  industries,  as  well  as  for  revenue, 
has  not  yet  been  abandoned.  Whether  or  not  it 
will  be,  and  if  so  how  soon,  is  a subject  on  which 
every  one  has  or  is  supposed  to  have  an  opinion.  It 
will  not  be  discussed  here. 


E.  C.  L. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/historyofamericaOOIewi 


I 


\ I 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT. 

Those  were  dark  times  when  the  first  Congress 
under  the  Constitution  met,  April  6,  1789,  the  date  on 
which  a quorum  first  appeared.  The  adoption  of  the 
new  instrument  of  government  and  the  election  of 
Washington  had  not  of  themselves  mended  and  would 
not  mend  all  the  ills  of  the  country.  A great  step 
toward  that  end  had  been  taken,  but  something  more 
was  needed.  For  one  thing,  the  financial  condition 
of  the  country  was  sunk  so  low  as  to  demand  imme- 
diate attention  from  Congress.  Poverty  was  written 
on  the  face  of  more  than  one  member,  as  well  as  on 
the  door  of  the  public  treasury, says  Professor  Bolles.^ 
There  was  great  depression  in  business  affairs  every- 
where, and  a great  number  of  petitions  pra3fing  for 
relief  had  been  sent  to  Congress  from  all  parts  of  the 
country.  These  petitions  affirmed  that  competition 
with  the  foreign  trader  had  been  the  cause  of  this 
demoralization  of  business,  and  united  in  asking  the 
general  government  to  adopt  protective  measures. 

1.  “Financial  History  of  the  United  States,”  II. ,73. 

7 


8 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


That  sent  by  the  business  men  of  Baltimore^  will  show 
the  general  character  of  these  communications: 

To  the  President  and  Congress  of  the  United 
States,  the  petition  of  the  tradesmen,  mechanics,  and 
others  of  the  town  of  Baltimore  humbly  sheweth: 

That,  since  the  close  of  the  late  war,  and  the  com- 
pletion of  the  Revolution,  your  petitioners  have  ob- 
served, with  serious  regret,  the  manufacturing  and 
trading  interests  of  the  country  rapidly  declining, 
while  the  wealth  of  the  people  hath  been  prodigally 
expended  in  the  purchase  of  those  articles  from 
foreigners  which  our  citizens,  if  properly  encouraged, 
were  fully  competent  to  furnish. 

To  check  this  growing  evil,  applications  were  made 
by  petitions  to  some  of  the  state  legislatures;  these 
guardians  of  the  people  in  the  several  states  interposed 
their  authority ; laws  were  by  them  enacted  with  the 
view  of  subduing,  or  at  least  diminishing  the  rage  for 
foreign,  and  encouraging  domestic  manufactures;  but 
the  event  hath  clearly  demonstrated  to  all  ranks  of 
men  that  no  effectual  provision  could  reasonably  be 
expected  until  one  uniform,  efficient  government 
should  pervade  this  wide-extended  country. 

The  happy  period  having  now  arrived  when  the 
United  States  are  placed  in  a new  position;  when 
the  adoption  of  the  general  government  gives  one 
sovereign  legislature  the  sole  and  exclusive  power  of 
laying  duties  upon  imports;  your  petitioners  rejoice 
at  the  prospect  this  affords  them,  that  America,  freed 
from  the  commercial  shackles  which  have  so  long 
bound  her,  will  see  and  pursue  her  true  interest,  be- 
coming independent  in  fact  as  well  as  in  name;  and 
they  confidently  hope  that  the  encouragement  and 
protection  of  American  manufactures  will  claim  the 

I.  "American  State  Papers,  Finance,”  I.,  5.  Other  petitions  are  also  there  given. 


THE  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT 


9 


earliest  attention  of  the  supreme  legislature  of  the 
nation  ; as  it  is  an  universally  acknowledged  truth  that 
the  United  States  contain  within  their  limits  re- 
sources amply  sufficient  to  enable  them  to  become  a 
great  manufacturing  country,  and  only  want  the  pat- 
ronage and  support  of  a wise,  energetic  government. 

Your  petitioners  consider  it  unnecessary  to  multi- 
ply arguments  to  so  enlightened  a body  as  the  one 
they  have  now  the  honor  of  addressing,  to  convince 
them  of  the  propriety  and  importance  of  attending  to 
matters  so  obviously  necessary  and,  indeed,  indis- 
pensable; as  every  member  must  have  observed  and 
lamented  the  present  melancholy  state  of  his  country ; 
the  number  of  her  poor  increasing  for  want  of  em- 
ployment; foreign  debts  accumulating;  houses  and 
lands  depreciating  in  value;  trade  and  manufactures 
languishing  and  expiring.  This  being  a faint  sketch 
of  the  gloomy  picture  this  countr}"  exhibits,  it  is  to 
the  supreme  legislature  of  the  United  States,  as  the 
guardians  of  the  whole  empire,  that  every  eye  is  now 
directed;  from  their  united  wisdom,  their  patriotism, 
their  ardent  love  of  their  country,  your  petitioners 
expect  to  derive  that  aid  and  assistance  which  alone 
can  dissipate  their  just  apprehensions,  and  animate 
them  with  hopes  of  success  in  future,  by  imposing  on 
all  foreign  articles  which  can  be  made  in  America 
such  duties  as  will  give  a just  and  decided  preference 
to  their  labors  and  thereby  discountenancing  fhat 
trade  which  tends  so  materially  to  injure  them  and 
impoverish  their  country,  and  which  may,  also,  in 
their  consequences,  contribute  to  the  discharge  of  the 
national  debt,  and  the  due  support  of  the  government. 

. Your  petitioners  take  the  liberty  to  annex  a list  of 
such  articles  as  are,  or  can  be,  manufactured  in  this 
place,  on  moderate  terms;  and  they  humbly  trust 
that  you  will  fully  consider  their  request,  and  grant 


lO 


TflE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


them,  in  common  with  the  other  mechanics  and  man- 
ufacturers of  the  United  States,  that  relief  which,  in 
your  wisdom,  may  appear  proper. 

The  list  referred  to  numbers  about  one  hundred 
and  twentj^-five  articles  of  all  kinds,  from  hair  powder 
to  ships,  after  which  come  the  names  of  the  petition- 
ers, about  one  hundred  and  forty  in  all. 

In  compliance  with  the  requests  contained  in  these 
petitions,  Mr.  Madison  on  April  8,  two  days  after 
the  counting  of  the  electoral  vote,  introduced  into 
the  House  a bill  levying  certain  duties  on  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise  imported  into  the  United 
vStates,  and  on  the  tonnage  of  vessels  bringing  them 
into  the  country.  I’he  preamble  declared  such  an 
act  to  be  '‘necessary  for  the  support  of  the  United 
States  and  the  encouragement  and  protection  of  man- 
ufacturers.” In  introducing  this  bill  Mr.  Madison 
urged  its  speedy  adoption  in  the  following  language:^ 

The  deficiency  in  our  treasury  has  been  too  notori- 
ous to  make  it  necessary  for  me  to  animadvert  upon 
that  subject.  Let  us  content  ourselves  with  endeav- 
oring to  remedy  the  evil.  To  do  this  a national  reve- 
nue must  be  obtained;  but  the  system  must  be  such  a 
one  that,  while  it  secures  the  object  of  revenue,  it 
shall  not  be  oppressive  to  our  constituents.  Happy  it 
is  for  us  that  such  a system  is  within  our  power;  for 
I apprehend  that  both  these  objects  may  be  obtained 
from  an  impost  on  articles  imported  into  the  United 
States. 

In  pursuing  this  measure,  I know  that  two  points 
occur  for  our  consideration.  The  first  respects  the 

1.  Benton’s  “Abridgment  of  the  Debates  of  Congress,”  I,,  22. 


THE  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT 


II 


general  regulation  of  commerce;  which,  in  my  opin- 
ion, ought  to  be  as  free  as  the  policy  of  nations  will 
admit.  The  second  relates  to  revenue  alone;  and 
this  is  the  point  I mean  more  particularly  to  bring 
into  the  view  of  the  committee. 

Not  being  at  present  possessed  of  sufficient  mate- 
rial for  fully  elucidating  these  points,  and  our  situ- 
ation admitting  of  no  delay,  I shall  propose  such 
articles  of  regulations  onl}"  as  are  likely  to  occasion 
the  least  difficulty. 

The  propositions  made  on  this  subject  by  Congress 
in  1783,  having  received,  generally,  the  approbation 
of  the  several  states  of  the  Union,  in  some  form  or 
other,  seem  well  calculated  to  become  the  basis  of 
the  temporar}^  system  which  I wish  the  committee  to 
adopt. ^ I am  vv?ell  aware  that  the  changes  which 
have  taken  place  in  many  of  the  states  and  in  our 
public  circumstances  since  that  period  will  require, 
in  some  degree,  a deviation  from  the  scale  of  duties 
then  affixed;  nevertheless,  for  the  sake  of  that  expe- 
dition which  is  necessary  in  order  to  embrace  the 
spring  importations,  I should  recommend  ^general 
adherence  to  the  plan. 

This,  sir,  with  the  addition  of  a clause  or  two  on 
the  subject  of  tonnage,  I will  now  read  and,  with 
leave,  submit  it  to  the  committee,  hoping  it  may 
meet  their  approbation  as  an  expedient  rendered  eli- 
gible by  the  urgent  occasion  there  is  for  the  speedy 
supplies  of  the  federal  treasury,  and  a speedy  rescue 
of  our  trade  from  its  present  anarchy. 

The  resolution  proposed  duties  on  rum  and  all 
other  spirituous  liquors;  on  molasses;  on  Madeira 

1.  The  scale  of  duties  offered  by  the  Continental  Congress  of  1783,  wiiich  had 
been  recently  agreed  to  by  all  the  states  except  New  York,  proposed  small  specific 
duties  on  a few  enumerated  articles  (wines,  spirits,  teas,  cocoa,  molasses,  sugars, 
and  pepper)  and  an  ad  valore77t  duty  of  five  per  cent  upon  all  other  goods,  com” 
puted  on  the  value  of  the  article  at  the  time  and  place  of  importation. 


12 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


and  all  other  wines;  on  common  bohea  teas  and  all 
other  teas;  on  pepper;  on  brown,  loaf,  and  all  other 
sugars;  on  cocoa  and  coffee;  and  on  the  value  of  all 
other  articles  at  the  time  and  place  of  importation. 
It  also  recommended  tonnage  duties  on  all  vessels  in 
which  merchandise  should  be  imported,  the  rate  to 
vary  according  as  the  vessels  belonged  to  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  to  subjects  of  powers  with  whom 
the  United  States  had  formed  treaties,  or  partly  to 
subjects  of  such  powers  and  partly  to  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  or  on  vessels  belonging  wholly  or  in 
part  to  the  subjects  of  other  powers.  The  rates  on 
these  different  items  were  not  specified  in  the  resolu- 
tion, but  were  to  be  inserted  as  the  committee  should 
agree  upon  them. 

Full  and  trustworthy  statistics  were  wholly  lacking, 
and  for  this  reason  some  thought  a uniform  ad  valore7n 
duty  would  be  best  to  begin  with.  The  measure  pro- 
posed, as  Madison  said,  was  merel}^  temporary,  the 
intention  being  to  replace  it  as  soon  as  possible  by  a 
more  perfect  one.  As  the  debate  progressed,  how- 
ever, it  wms  seen  that  the  people  were  making  known 
their  wishes  to  the  members  of  Congress.  The  de- 
bates in  the  House  on  this  first  tariff  bill  bring  out  fairly 
well  most  of  the  arguments  since  used.^  According 
to  Hildreth^  the  only  point  not  brought  out  that  has 
since  been  used  was  that  of  the  want  of  powder  in  the 

1.  Schouler,  “History  of  the  United  States/’  I. ,87;  ed.  of  1880. 

2.  “History  of  the  United  States.’’  IV.,  65;  rev.  ed.  of  1851. 


THE  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT 


13 


federal  government  to  lay  duties  for  protection.^ 
Agricultural  and  manufacturing  interests  clashed 
somewhat.  The  leading  manufacturing  states,  Massa-- 
chusetts  and  Pennsylvania,  naturally  wished  their 
interests  protected,  and  the  bill  was  so  shaped. 

A statement  made  by  Mr.  Madison  after  the  de- 
bate had  been  going  on  for  some  time  is  interesting 
as  showing  the  position  taken  by  him  and  by  many 
others  at  the  time  regarding  protection.  He  said: 
‘Hf  my  general  principle  is  a good  one,  that  com- 
merce ought  to  be  free,  and  labor  and  industry  left 
at  large  to  find  their  proper  object,  the  only  thing 
which  remains  will  be  to  discover  the  exceptions 
which  do  not  come  within  the  rule  I have  laid  down. 

. . . Although  the  freedom  of  commerce  wouhd 

be  advantageous  to  the  world,  yet,  in  some  partic- 
ulars, one  nation  might  suffer  to  benefit  others,  and 
this  ought  to  be  for  the  general  good  of  society.” 

The  debate  continued  in  committee  of  the  whole 
House  on  the  state  of  the  Union  until  May  16. 
other  subject,”  sa^^s  Mr.  Gay,^  could  have  been  hit 
upon  to  test  so  thoroughly  the  strength  of  the  new 
bond  of  union.  It  was  to  brush  aside  all  those  trade 
regulations  in  the  several  states  which  each  had  hither- 
to thought  essential  to  its  prosperity.  Every  interest 

1.  The  debate  may  be  found  in  ‘The  Annals  of  Congress,”  and  in  Benton’s 
“Abridgment;”  a brief  outline  as  regards  particular  articles  in  Schouler,  loc, 
cit.,  and  one  somewhat  fuller  in  Hildreth,  loc.  cit, 

2.  “James  Madison,”  in  “The  American  Statesmen  Series,”  p.  133. 


H 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


in  the  country  was  to  be  considered,  and  their  differ- 
ent, sometimes  opposing,  claims  were  to  be  recon- 
ciled.” 

On  May  i6  a bill  was  formulated  from  the  various 
resolutions  fixing  the  rates  on  different  articles  which 
had  been  adopted  by  the  committee  during  the  dis- 
cussion. It  was  taken  to  the  Senate  on  Monday, 
May  i8,  and  the  following  Thursday  was  assigned 
for  it.  On  that  day  it  was  postponed  until  the  25th. 
Senator  Maclay  of  Pennsjdvania  says:^  ‘^The  idea  has 
got  abroad  that  the  mercantile  interest  has  been  ex- 
erted to  delay  this  bill.  The  merchants  have  un- 
doubtedly regulated  the  prices  of  their  goods  agree- 
ably to  the  proposed  duties,  so  that  the  consumers  of 
dutied  articles  reall}^  pay  the  whole  impost;  and 
w'hatever  the  proposed  duties  exceed  the  state  duties‘^ 
now  paid  is  clear  gain  to  the  merchant.  Some  of 
them,  indeed,  dispute  the  payment  of  the  state  im- 
post.” 

On  the  25th  he  writes:  ‘^We  sat  on  the  impost 
bill,  and  debated  long  on  the  style  of  the  enacting 
clause.  It  was  an  old  field,  and  the  same  arguments 
were  used  which  had  formerly  been  advanced;  but 
the  style  of  the  law,  which  had  already  passed,  was 
adopted.  Now  came  the  first  duty  of  12  cents  00 
Jamaica  proof.  We  debated  until  a quarter  past 

1,  “Sketches  of  Debates  in  the  First  Senate  of  the  United  States,”  p,  55.  The 
Senate  sat  with  closed  doors  until  February  20,  1794,  previous  to  which' date  there 
is  no  report  of  its  debates  except  such  as  Mr.  Maclay’s. 

2.  Under  the  Articles  of  Confederation  each  state  levied  its  own  tariff  duties. 


THE  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT 


^5 


three;  and  it  was  reduced  to  8.  Adjourned.  I fear 
that  our  impost  bill  will  be  rendered  in  a great  meas- 
ure unproductive.  This  business  is  the  work  of  New 
England  men.  They  want  the  article  of  molasses' 
quite  struck  out,  or  a least  greatly  reduced;  there- 
fore they  will  strike  out  everything;  or,  to  place  it 
in  a different  point  of  view,  almost  every  part  will 
be  proscribed  either  by  one  or  other  of  those  who 
choose  to  be  opponents,  for  every  conspirator  must 
be  indulged  in  the  sacrifice  of  his  particular  enemy.” 

Discriminations  in  favor  of  nationshaving  commer- 
cial treaties  with  the  United  States  occupied  all  the 
time  on  the  26th,  and  carried  by  a vote  of  four.  “All 
the  arguments  of  the  other  House  were  repeated  over 
and  over,”  says  Maclay.  The  discussion  of  the  bill 
wascontinued  daily,  on  June  9 being  conducted  “with 
less  order,  less  sense,  and  less  decency,  too,  than  any 
question  I . have  ever  37et  heard  debated  in  the  Sen- 
ate.”^ On  the  nth  there  was  a lengthy  debate  on 
drawbacks.  “Butler^  flamed  away,  and  threatened 
the  dissolution  of  the  Union  with  regard  to  his  state, 
as  sure  as  God  was  in  the  firmament,  . . . His 

state  would  live  free  or  die  glorious.” 

On  the  conclusion  of  the  debate  Maclay  writes: 
“The  senators  from  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, Dela- 
ware, and  Maryland,  in  their  every  act,  seemed  de- 

1.  Molasses  was  imported  from  the  West  Indies  for  the  making  of  New  England 
rum. 

2.  Maclay,  loc,  cit. , p,  75. 

3.  Of  South  Carolina. 


1 6 THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 

sirous  of  making  the  impost  productive,  both  as  a 
revenue,  and  effective  for  the  encouragement  of 
manufactures;  and  seemed  to  consider  the  whole  of 
the  imposts  (salt  excepted)  much  too  low.  Articles 
of  luxury,  many  of  them  would  have  raised  one-half. 
But  the  members  both  from  the  north  and,  still  more 
particularly,  from  the  south,  were  ever  in  a flame 
when  any  articles  were  brought  forward  that  were  in 
any  considerable  use  among  them.” 

The  bill  was  much  changed  in  passing  through  the 
Senate,  so  much  so  that  the  House  refused  to  agree 
to  the  amendments  there  made.  Committees  of  con- 
ference were  appointed  to  reconcile  these  differences, 
and  on  June  27  it  was  reported  to  the  House  that 
they  had  adopted  the  Senate  bill  with  a few  amend- 
ments. The  lower  House  agreed  to  this,  though 
with  considerable  reluctance  on  some  points,^  and 
the  bill  was  signed  b}^  the  president  on  July  4.  It 
was  not  only  the  first  tariff  act,  but  the  first  revenue 
act  of  any  kind  passed  after  the  organization  of  the 
government  under  the  Constitution.  Although  the 
bill  occupied  less  than  three  pages  of  the  proceed- 
ings, it  named  quite  a long  list  of  articles,  as  will  be 
shown  later,  on  which  specific  duties  were  levied, 
and  imposed  ad  valorem  rates  on  five  classes  of 
goods.  It  enumerated  a short  list  of  articles  to  be 
admitted  free  of  duty;  provided  for  the  repayment  of 
all  duties,  less  one  per  cent,  upon  goods  again  ex- 

1.  Hildreth,  IV., 97. 


THE  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT 


17 


ported,  and  discriminated  in  favor  of  commodities 
coming  in  vessels  owned  in  the  United  States, 

The  letters  of  Madison  contain  many  interesting 
references  to  the  debate  on  this  bill.  On  May  9 he 
wrote  to  Jefferson:^  ‘^The  deliberations  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  have  been  mainly  employed  on 
the  subject  of  an  impost.  Opinions  have  been  con- 
siderably divided  on  the  quantum  of  duties  that  would 
be  practicable,  and,  in  some  instances,  on  the  ratio 
of  the  different  duties  likely  to  operate  differently  in 
different  States  that  would  be  just.  In  general,  the 
interests  and  ideas  of  the  Northern  and  Southern 
States  have  been  less  adverse  than  was  predicted  by 
the  opponents  or  hoped  b}^  the  friends  of  the  new 
Government.  Members  from  the  same  State,  or  the 
same  parts  of  the  Union,  are  as  often  separated  on 
questions  from  each  other  as  they  are  united  in  oppo- 
sition to  other  States  or  other  quarters  of  the  conti- 
nent. This  is  a favorable  symptom.  The  points 
on  which  most  controversy  has  been  raised  are:  ist. 
The  duties  on  molasses.  2nd.  The  discrimination 
between  nations  in  and  those  not  in  Treaty.  The 
arguments  against  what  appears  to  be  a proportionate 
duty  on  molasses  to  that  of  rum  turned  on  its  dispro- 
portion to  the  value  of  the  article;  the  effect  on  the 
trade  in  it,  which  yields  the  only  market  for  certain 
exports  from  the  Eastern  States;  the  effect  on  the 

1 Madison’s  “Works’'  {“Letters  and  Other  Writings’’),  I.,  463. 


i8 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


fisheries,  in  which  both  rum  and  molasses  are  con- 
sumed; and,  finall}^  the  effect  on  the  poor  in  that 
part  of  the  Union  where  the  latter  enters  into  their 
ordinary  diet.  The  opposite  arguments  have  been, 
that  a proportion  to  the  duty  on  rum  was  essential  to 
the  productiveness  of  the  fund,  as  well  as  to  the  rules 
of  justice  as  applied  to  different  States,  some  of 
which  would  consume  foreign  and  some  country  rum  ; 
that  if  the  proportion  was  not  violated,  the  trade  in 
molasses  would  not  be  affected  nor  the  distilleries 
injured;  that  the  effect  on  the  fisheries  would  be  too 
small  to  be  felt;  and  that  the  poor  who  consume  mo« 
lasses  would  escape  the  burden  falling  on  the  poor 

who  consume  sugar It  will  become  a 

serious  question  whether  a general  reduction  of  the 
rates  shall  be  made  or  not,  on  the  idea  of  the  danger 
of  smuggling.  The  distinction  between  the  nations 
in  and  not  in  Treaty  has  given  birth  to  three  distinct 
and  urgent  debates.  On  the  last,  the  minority  was 
very  small  for  putting  Great  Britain  at  once  on  the 
same  footing  w^^th  the  most  favored  nation.  This 
policy,  though  patronized  by  some  respectable  names, 
is  chiefly  abetted  b}^  the  spirit  of  this  City,^  which  is 
steeped  in  Anglicism.  It  is  not  improbable,  from 
the  urgency  of  its  representative,  that  a further  effort 
may  yet  be  made.” 

On  May  17  he  wrote  to  Edmund  Pendleton:  ^^The 
progress  of  our  new  revenue  system  continues  to  be 

1.  New  York,  then  the  seat  of  government. 


THE  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT 


19 


slow.  The  bill  rating  the  duties  is  still  with  the 
Senate.  It  is  said  that  many  alterations  will  be  pro- 
posed, consisting  of  reductions  chiefly.  It  is  said, 
also,  that  the  proposition  for  putting  Great  Britain  on 
the  same  footing  with  our  Allies  in  all  respects,  prior 
to  a treaty  with  her,  will  have  a majority  in  that 
House,  and  will  undergo  another  agitation  in  the 
House  of  Representatives.  It  had  before  three  trials 
in  the  latter,  but  it  lost  ground  in  each,  and  finally 
was  in  a minority  of  nine  or  ten  against  near  forty. 
I think  it  is  an  impolitic  idea  as  it  relates  to  our 
foreign  interest,  and  not  less  so,  perhaps,  as  it  relates 
to  the  popular  sentiment  of  America,  particularly  of 
Virginia,  and  still  more  particularly  of  that  part  of  it 
which  is  already  most  dissatisfied  with  the  new 
Government.” 

There  are  one  or  two  passages  worth  noting  in  a 
letter  written  by  William  Grayson^  to  Patrick  Henr}/ 
on  June  12:  ^‘Inclosed  you  have  the  bill  for  im- 
posts, b}^  which  you  will  see  there  is  a great  dispo- 
sition here  for  the  advancement  of  commerce  and 
manufactures  in  preference  to  agriculture.  I have 
marked  all  the  amendments  made  in  the  Senate 
which  I at  present  recollect.  The  bill  with  the 
amendments  is  before  the  lower  house ; you  will  easily 
perceive  the  ascendency  of  the  eastern  interest  by 
looking  at  the  molasses,  which  is  reduced  from  2^ 

I.  “Patrick  Henry;  Life,  Correspondence,  and  Speeches,’’  by  William  Wirt 
Henry,  III.,  392.  Mr.  Grayson  was  then  one  of  the  senators  from  Virginia. 


20 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


cents,  while  salt  continues  at  six,  and  with  an  allow- 
ance of  a drawback  on  their  fish,  &c.” 

A little  further  on  in  the  same  letter  he  says : ‘‘The 
raising  of  money  by  impost  has  been  thought  very 
favorably  of  throughout  America;  I am,  however, 
of  opinion  that  considering  the  extent  of  our  coasts, 
the  impossibility  of  preventing  smuggling,  that  it  will 
be  found  on  experiment  to  be  the  most  expensive 
mode  of  raising  mone}^  that  could  have  been  devised. 
Satisfied  I am  that  it  will  be  particularly  injurious  to 
the  Southern  States,  who  do  not  and  cannot  manu- 
facture, and  must  therefore  pay  duties  on  everything 
they  consume.  The  cry  here  is,  raise  everything  in 
this  way;  and  to  be  sure  this  is  good  policy  with  the 
States  east  of  Mar3dand;  some  of  the  other  States 
join  in  the  cry,  not  because  it  is  their  interest,  but 
because  they  are  afraid  of  trying  any  other  mode  of 
taxation.” 

Specific  duties  were  fixed  by  the  act  at  8 and  lo 
cents  per  gallon  on  spirits;  lo  to  i8  cents  on  wines; 

5 cents  on  beer,  ale,  and  porter  in  casks;  20  cents 
per  dozen  on  the  same  if  in  bottles;  2^  cents  per 
gallon  on  molasses;  i to  3 cents  per  pound  on  sugar; 

6 to  20  cents  on  teas  imported  in  American  vessels 
from  India  and  China;  8 to  26  cents  per  pound  on 
teas  imported  from  Europe  in  American  vessels;  15 
to  45  cents  on  teas  imported  in  any  other  manner; 
50  cents  per  pair  on  boots;  7 cents  per  pair  on  leather 


THE  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT 


21 


shoes,  and  lo  cents  on  shoes  of  silk;  75  cents  per 
1 12  pounds  on  cables  and  tarred  cordage,  and  90 
cents  if  untarred;  $2  per  112  pounds  on  twine  and 
pack  thread;  56  cents  per  112  pounds  on  un wrought 
steel;  i cent  per  pound  on  nails  and  spikes;  6 cents 
per  pound  on  manufactured  tobacco;  docents  per 
1 12  pounds  on  hemp;  3 cents  per  pound  on  cotton; 
50  cents  per  dozen  on  wool  and  cotton  cards;  2 cents 
per  bushel  on  coal;  75  cents  per  barrel  on  pickled 
fish,  and  50  cents  per  quintal  on  those  dried;  6 cents 
per  bushel  on  salt;  2i  cents  per  pound  on  coffee;  i 
cent  per  pound  on  cocoa;  16  cents  per  pound  on  in- 
digo; 10  cents  per  pound  on  snuff;  4 cents  per 
pound  on  cheese;  2 cents  per  pound  on  tallow  can- 
dles and  soap;  6 cents  per  pound  on  candles  of  wax 
or  spermaceti;  and  10  cents  per  pack  on  playing 
cards. 

Ad  valorem  duties  were  levied  as  follows:  On  all 
forms  of  glass  except  black  quart  bottles,  on  china-, 
stone-,  and  earthenware,  gunpowder,  paints  ground 
in  oil,  shoes  and  knee  buckles,  gold  and  silver  lace, 
gold  and  silver  leaf,  10  per  cent. 

On  all  writing,  printing,  or  wrapping  paper,  paper 
hangings,  and  pasteboard,  cabinet  wares,  buttons, 
saddles,  gloves  of  leather,  7!  per  cent. 

On  hats  of  fur,  wool,  or  beaver,  millinery  ready- 
made, castings  of  iron,  slit  and  rolled  iron,  tanned 
or  tawed  leather,  leather  goods,  canes, walking  sticks, 

4 


22 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


whips,  ready-made  clothing,  brushes,  gold,  silver, 
and  plated  ware,  jewelry  and  paste  work,  anchors, 
wrought,  tin,  and  pewter  ware,  7^  per  cent. 

On  every  coach,  chariot,  or  other  four-wheeled 
carriage,  and  on  every  chaise  or  other  two-wheeler, 
or  any  part  of  these,  15  per  cent. 

On  all  other  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  5 
per  cent  on  the  value  thereof  at  the  time  and  place  of 
importation,  except  the  following  free  list:  saltpetre, 
pig  and  plate  tin,  lead,  old  pewter,  brass,  iron,  brass 
wire,  copper  in  plates,  wool,  cotton,  dyeing  woods 
and  dyeing  drugs,  raw  hides,  beaver,  and  all  other 
furs  and  deer  skins. 

The  discount  allowed  from  the  above  rates  on 
goods  coming  in  American  vessels  was  10  per  cent. 
The  act  was  to  go  into  effect  on  August  i and  to  re- 
main in  effect  until  June  i,  1796,  and  from  thence 
until  the  end  of  the  next  succeeding  session  of  Con- 
gress, and  no  longer.  The  average  of  duties  levied 
equaled  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  8i  per  cent,  and  the 
net  amount  collected  on  imports  and  tonnage  from 
August  I to  December  31,  1789,  was  $768,797.40. 

Being  the  first  move  in  the  direction  of  taxing  im- 
ports, the  act  of  1789  was  largely  experimental  in 
character.  Unquestionably  one  purpose  it  was  in- 
tended to  serve  was  the  production  of  revenue.  But 
the  preamble  goes  further  and  speaks  of  the  encotir---^ 
ugemcnt  and  froteciio7i  of  manufactures . It  reads 


THE  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT 


23 


as  follows:  ‘‘Whereas  it  is  necessary  for  the  support 
of  the  government,  for  the  discharge  of  the  debts  of 
the  United  States,  and  the  encouragement  and  pro- 
tection of  manufactures,  that  duties  be  laid  on  goods, 
wares,  and  merchandise  imported.  Be  it  enacted,” 
etc.  So  absolutely  necessary  were  these  purposes 
deemed  that  not  a solitary  voice  was  raised  against 
them. 

“In  the  whole  history  of  tariff  legislation  in  this 
country  it  is  the  only  law  that  was  thus  openly  passed 
for  the  protection  of  American  industry.  For  pru- 
dential reasons  this  form  of  preamble  was  changed, 
and  tariff  enactments  have  on  their  face  since  been 
for  the  purpose  of  revenue  only.”^  Even  the  “Mc- 
Kinley Bill,”  which  many  hold  to  be  an  extreme 
protection  measure,  calls  itself  “an  act  to  reduce  the 
revenue.” 

“It  is  not  a little  remarkable,”  says  Justice  Stoiy,^ 
“that  the  culture  of  cotton  was  just  then  beginning  in 
South  Carolina;  and  her  statesmen  then  thought  a 
protecting  duty  to  aid  agriculture  was  in  all  respects 
proper  and  constitutional.” 

Did  this  act  encourage  and  protect  manufactures? 
Later  generations  of  statesmen  down  to  the  present 
day  have,  as  one  answer  to  the  denial  of  the  consti- 
tutional right  to  enact  protective  duties,  pointed  to 
the  preamble  and  said,  “Thus  our  fathers  understood 

1.  Lalor’s  “Cyclopedia  of  Political  Science,”  III.,  858. 

2.  “Commentary  on  the  Constitution,’’  sec.  1092,  note  4,  5th  edition. 


24  the  AMERICAN  TARIFF 

it.”  On  the  other  hand  must  be  placed  the  fact  that 
throughout  the  debate  the  members  of  that  first  Con- 
gress show  their  main  purpose  to  have  been  the  rais- 
ing of  revenue.  The  need  of  money  was  so  pressing 
if  current  expenses  and  past  obligations  were  to  be 
honorably  met,  that  any  other  consideration  was,  at 
least  for  the  time  being,  a secondary  matter.  As  such, 
protection  was  discussed  and  duties  were  adjusted  to 
afford  it;  for,  as  Mr.  Madison  said,  the  states  which 
were  ripe  for  manufactures  could  rightfully  claim 
that  their  particular  interests  be  attended  to.  ‘‘One 
object  in  adjusting  duties  to  afford  protection,  as  well 
as  to  obtain  revenue,  was  to  reconcile  the  states  to 
the  new  revenue  system  by  the  promise  of  the  advan- 
tage which  protection  held  out  to  them;  and  it  was 
also  believed  to  be  good  policy  to  develop  every  re- 
source of  the  country  essential  to  its  support,  to  the 
end  that  it  need  not  be  dependent  for  supplies  upon 
any  foreign  market.”^ 

Under  this  act  both  specific  and  ad  valore^n  duties 
were  very  low.  Unwrought  steel,  for  instance,  was 
rated  at  56  cents  per  112  pounds.  This,  as  Hamil- 
ton pointed  out  in  a report  to  Congress^  in  the  fol- 
lowing April  on  the  operation  of  the  act,  at  an  aver- 
age cost  of  the  article,  was  then  less  than  the  five  per 
ceniad  valoj^em  rate  levied  on  all  goods  not  specially 
named  in  other  parts  of  the  act.  As  an  enumerated  ar- 

1.  Landon,  “Constitutional  History  and  Government  of  the  United  States, ”p.98, 

2.  See  his  “Works,’'  edited  by  his  son,  III.,  55. 


THE  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT 


25 


tide  it  was  to  be  presumed  that  Congress  intended 
to  rate  it  higher  than  five  per  cent,  ‘^especially  as  a 
higher  rate  would  be  in  favor  of  the  manufacture  of 
it  among  ourselves,  in  which  considerable  progress 
has  been  made,  especially  in  the  state  of  Pennsyl- 
vania.” The  highest  ad  valorem  rate  was  15  per 
cent.  But  while  the  rates  fixed  upon  were  low,  the 
freights  of  the  time  were  high.  This  fact  of  itself 
tended  to  protect  American  industry  to  a great  de- 
gree.^ 

What  were  the  industrial  conditions  of  the  time? 
They  were  then  and  for  nearly  twenty  years  after- 
wards practically  the  same  as  in  the  Colonial  period.'^ 
The  people  in  the  main  continued  in  the  same  lines 
of  work  their  fathers  had  followed.  By  the  census  of 
1790  the  population  fell  a little  short  of  4,000,000, 
including  700,000  slaves.  The  occupation  of  by  far 
the  greater  number  of  the  people  was  agriculture. 
In  New  England,  according  to  Franklin,^  “calcu- 
lations carefully  made  do  not  raise  the  portion  of 
property  or  the  number  of  men  employed  in  manu- 
factures,fisheries,  navigation,  and  trade  to  one-eighth 
of  the  property  and  people  occupied  by  agriculture, 
even  in  that  commercial  quarter.”  And  at  the  same 

1.  Hart,  “Formation  of  the  Union,”  in  “Epochs  of  American  History”  series, 
p.  147. 

2.  Taussig,  “Tariff  History  of  the  United  States,”  p.  8. 

3.  Address  before  the  “Society  for  Political  Enquirers”  of  Philadelphia,  May  11, 
1789.  Quoted  by  Adams,  “Taxation  in  the  United  States,  1789-1816,’'  p.  10  (Johns 
Hopkins  University  Studies,  II. , 272) . 


26 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFI 


time  Tench  Coxe^  estimated  that  in  1787  nine-tenths 
of  the  people  in  the  whole  country  were  engaged  in 
the  latter  occupation.  The  congressional  debates  of 
the  time  show  the  members  of  the  body  were  aware  of 
this  fact.  Commerce  was  next  in  importance;  but  oc- 
cupations closely  allied  with  agriculture  (those  of  the 
various  artisans,  as  blacksmiths,  carpenters,  masons, 
shoemakers,  and  others)  gave  employment  to  most 
of  those  people  not  actually  engaged  in  it.^ 

Division  of  labor,  as  the  term  is  used  to-day,  was 
then  little  known.  Many  articles  used  in  the  home 
and  on  the  farm  were  made  in  the  country,  but  as  a 
general  thing  onl}^  those  which  could  not  be  imported. 
There  was  in  the  country  neither  skill  nor  capital  for 
carrying  on  manufacturing.  The  only  exception  was 
shipbuilding,  which  was  stimulated  by  the  commer- 
cial interests.  As  a consequence  imports  were  very 
largely  paid  for  by  the  exports  of  agricultural  pro- 
ducts The  only  manufactures  sent  out  of  the  country 
were  those  but  ‘‘one  step  removed  from  raw  material, 
as  for  example,  flour  made  from  wheat,  or  snuff  from 
tobacco.”^  Of  this  character  also  were  New  Eng- 
land rum  and  Pennsylvania  beer, both  of  which  were 
made  very  extensively.  The  scarcity  of  black  quart 
bottles  needed  for  the  latter  explains  why  the  ten  per 

1.  “View  of  the  United  States,”  p.  6. 

2.  Taussig,  loc.  cit, 

3.  Taussig,  loc.  cit.,  p,  9. 

4.  Adams,  loc.  cit,,  p.  274, 


THE  FIRST  TARIFF  ACT 


27 


cent  duty  levied  on  all  other  forms  of  glassware  was 
not  applied  to  them. 

England  was  rapidl}^  developing  her  manufactures, 
and  her  trade  with  this  country  increased  until  it  be- 
came very  important.  But  for  several  years  the  United 
States  did  not  respond  to  this  influence  for  improved 
methods  in  manufacturing.  These  facts  and  others 
like  them  were  known  to  the  members  of  the  first 
Congress,  and  they  recognized  in  addition,  as  Pro- 
fessoi  Adams  has  pointed  out,^  a fact  which  some  of 
their  critics  do  not~that  the  treaty  of  Versailles, 
which  had  gained  them  political  independence,  had 
set  them  outside  the  course  of  English  commerce  and 
materially  disturbed  their  old  trade  relations. 

As  to  the  political  origin  of  the  doctrine  of  protec- 
tion Professor  Adams  says:^  ^‘The  ‘American  sys- 
tem’ of  protection  took  its  rise  out  of  the  struggle  of 
contradictory  purposes  which  the  record  of  the  first 
twenty-five  years  of  the  national  existence  discloses — * 
a system  which,  looked  at  in  its  inception  and  growth, 
must  be  regarded  as  the  formulated  purpose  of  this 
people  to  throw  off  completely  the  3^oke  of  colonial 
dependence.  The  theory  of  interpretation,  therefore, 
which  alone  can  give  unit}^  to  this  first  period  of 
revenue  history  is  that  the  protective  purpose  was  a 
subordinate  part  of  a prominent  and  strong  political 
purpose,  and  he  who  undertakes  to  explain  it  from 

1 . Loc.  cit.,  p.  275. 

2.  Loc.  cit.,  p.  281. 


28 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


the  Standpoint  of  trade  interests  alone  can  never  hope 
to  touch  bottom.” 

Closely  connected  with  this  tariff  act  and  passed 
about  the  same  time,  was  one  la3dng  discriminating 
duties  on  tonnage.  American  vessels  were  charged 
a duty  of  six  cents  a ton,  and  foreign  vessels  fift}^; 
those  owned  partly  in  the  United  States  and  partly 
abroad,  thirty.  American  fishing  and  coasting  ves* 
sels  were  to  pay  but  once  a year;  but  foreign  ves- 
sels, if  employed  in  the  coasting  trade,  from  which 
it  was  thought  expedient  not  to  entirely  exclude  them, 
were  to  pay  a new  tonnage  duty  upon  every  entry. 

North  Carolina  and  Rhode  Island  had  not  yet  rati- 
fied the  Constitution,  and  consequently  occupied  the 
position  of  foreign  states.  But  special  enactments 
were  made  exempting  their  agricultural  and  manufact- 
ured products  from  foreign  duties.  And  further,  until 
January  15,  1790,  their  vessels  were  to  be  allowed 
the  same  privileges  as  those  belonging  to  the  United 
States. 


CHAPTER  IL 


HAMILTON  AND  THE  TARIFF. 

The  act  establishing  the  treasury  department  was 
not  passed  by  Congress  until  September  2,  1789,  and 
on  the  nth  Alexander  Hamilton  received  his  com- 
mission as  secretary.  On  the  21st  the  House  of 
Representatives  passed  a series  of  resolutions  asking 
him  to  report  to  that  body  such  measures  as  he  should 
deem  expedient  for  providing  for  the  national  debt 
and  for  sustaining  the  public  credit.  He  at  once 
set  about  the  task,  and  on  January  14,  1790,  made 
his  first  report  on  the  public  credit.  Upon  his  notify- 
ing the  House  that  he  vi^as  ready  to  offer  it,  there 
was  considerable  debate  as  to  whether  it  should  be 
received  orally  or  in  writing,  and  the  latter  method 
was  adopted.  That  body,  well  knowing  the  great 
personal  magnetism  and  persuasive  powers  of  the 
man,  doubtless  hesitated  to  place  itself  under  their 
direct  influence.  Thus  was  established  a precedent 
which  has  ever  since  been  followed. 

‘Ht  was  in  this  report,”  says  Henry  Cabot  Lodge, ^ 
“that  Hamilton  entered  upon  the  most  important  part 

1.  “Alexander  Hamilton’Mn  “American  Statesmen”  series,  p.  88. 

29 


30 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


of  his  career,  and  at  the  same  time  upon  the  period 
in  which  he  impressed  his  individuality  strongly  upon 
the  history  and  development  of  the  United  States. 
The  first  report  on  the  public  credit  was  not  only  the 
beginning  of  a remarkable  financial  scheme,  which 
achieved  a brilliant  practical  success,  but  with  its 
successors  which  came  quickly  after  it  from  the  fer- 
tile mind  at  the  head  of  the  treasury,  it  carried  out 
a far-reaching  policy  which  affected,  as  it  came  to 
maturity,  the  character  of  the  whole  government, 
built  up  and  welded  together  a powerful  party,  and 
founded  a school  of  political  thought  which  still  en- 
dures and  has  always  exercised  a profound  influence 
on  our  material  growth  and  our  political  and  consti- 
tutional system.” 

In  this  report^  he  advocated  a proper  provision  for 
and  funding  of  the  national  debt,  and  the  assump- 
tion of  the  state  debts.  The  foreign  debt  amounted, 
with  arrears  of  interest,  to  $11,710,378.62;  the  do- 
mestic to  $40,414,085.94.  To  this  should  be  added 
the  unliquidated  part  of  the  domestic  debt,  estimated 
at  $2,000,000.  On  these  the  yearly  interest  amounted 
to  $4,587,444.81,  w'hich  sum  also  includes  that  on 
the  state  debts.  Omitting  these  last,  a yearly  income 
of  $2,239,163.09  would  be  needed  for  the  payment 
of  interest,  to  w hich  should  be  added  $600,000  per 

1,  vSeehis  “Works,”  edited  by  Jo^in  C.  Hamilton,  III.,  33 foil.;  same,  edited  by 
Lodge;  “American  State  Papers,  Finance,”  I.,  22  foil.;  Morse’s  “Life  of  Alex- 
ander Hamilton,”  I.,  ch.  viii. 


HAMILTON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


annum  for  the  current  expenses  of  the  government/ 
These  sums  Hamilton  thought  might  be  obtained 
from  the  present  duties  on  imports  and  tonnage,  with 
the  additions  which,  without  any  possible  disadvan- 
tage to  trade  or  agriculture,  might  be  made  on  wines, 
spirits  (including  those  distilled  in  the  United  States), 
teas,  and  coffee.  The  duties  on  these  articles  he 
thought  it  would  be  sound  policy  to  put  as  high  as 
would  be  consistent  with  the  practicability  of  safe 
collection.  That  they  would  bear  high  duties  better 
than  most  others  he  thought  could  hardly  be  ques- 
tioned. They  are  all  really  luxuries,  most  of  them 
foreign,  and  some  pernicious  if  used  to  excess. 
^‘And  there  is  perhaps  none  of  them  which  is  not 
consumed  in  so  great  abundance  as  may  justly  de- 
nominate it  a source  of  national  extravagance  and 
impoverishment.”  Should  increase  of  duties  tend  to 
decrease  of  consumption,  the  effect  would  be  in  eveiy 
way  desirable.  But  such  decrease  would  probably 
not  be  so  great  as  to  frustrate  the  expected  benefit  to 
the  revenue  from  raising  the  duties.  To  other  rea- 
sons for  putting  as  high  duties  on  these  articles  as 
they  would  carry  might  be  added  those  that  they 
were  of  a nature,  from  their  extensive  consumption, 
to  be  very  productive,  and  were  among  the  most 
difficult  to  smuggle. 

1.  For  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1893,  the  total  revenue  of  the  government 
was  $385,818,629.  The  total  ordinary  expenditures  for  the  same  year  amounted  to 
$383,477,954. 


32 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


As  to  the  mode  of  collecting  duties  on  these  arti- 
cles, he  thought  a duty  on  importations  best  for  two 
reasons:  first,  that  meeting  the  object  at  its  first  en- 
trance into  the  country,  the  collection  is  drawn  to  a 
point,  and  so  far  simplified;  second,  that  it  avoids 
the  possibility  of  interference  between  the  regulations 
of  the  United  States  and  those  of  the  particular  states. 
To  prevent  smuggling  he  advocated  a second  or  in- 
terior scrutiny — the  pursuit  of  an  article  from  its  im- 
portation into  the  hands  of  the  dealers,  whereby  the 
risk  of  detection  would  be  so  greatly  increased  that 
few  would  venture  to  incur  it.  Such  a system  intro- 
duced in  some  shape  or  other  he  thought  essential  to 
the  efficacy  of  every  attempt  to  render  the  revenues 
of  the  United  States  equal  to  their  exigencies,  their 
safety,  their  prosperity,  their  honor. 

He  therefore  recommended  that  the  duties  on 
wines,  distilled  spirits,  teas  and  coffee  levied  by  the 
act  of  July  4,  1789,  should  cease  with  the  last  day 
of  the  next  May;  and  that  instead  of  them  the  fol- 
lowing be  levied: 

On  wines  and  distilled  spirits,  according  to  proof, 
20  to  40  cents  per  gallon. 

On  teas,  12  to  40  cents  per  pound. 

On  coffee,  5 cents  per  pound. 

On  spirits  distilled  in  the  United  States  from  mo- 
lasses, sugar,  or  other  foreign  materials,  ii  to  30 
cents  per  gallon. 


HAMILTON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


33 


On  spirits  distilled  within  the  United  States  in  any 
city,  town,  or  village,  from  domestic  products,  9 to 
25  cents  per  gallon. 

On  all  stills  in  any  other  place  than  a city,  town, 
or  village,  distilling  spirits  from  domestic  products, 
60  cents  yearly  for  every  gallon  of  capacity  of  each 
still. 

The  net  product  of  duties  proposed  in  this  report 
Hamilton  estimated  at  about  $1,703,400,  which,  if 
near  the  truth,  would,  with  the  probable  product  of 
duties  on  imports  and  tonnage,  complete  the  sum  re- 
quired. The  duties  on  distilled  spirits  he  proposed 
should  be  applied  in  the  first  place  to  the  payment  of 
the  interest  on  the  foreign  debt;  the  remainder,  after 
deducting  $600,000,  together  with  other  duties,  to 
be  applied  to  the  payment  of  interest  on  the  new  loan 
($12,000,000)  recommended  in  another  part  of  the 
report. 

This  report  was  first  given  to  the  public  on  Febru- 
ary 2.  The  effect  was  immediate.  Certificates  ol  the 
national  debt  advanced  with  great  rapidity  from  fif- 
teen cents  on  the  dollar,  or  even  less,  to  fifty.  And 
the  probability  now  was  that  those  having  enough 
confidence  to  buy  and  hold  would  in  the  end  double 
their  money.  Consequently  there  was  a great  scram- 
ble on  the  part  of  speculators  to  buy  up  as  many  of 
these  certificates  as  possible  at  a low  figure.  The 
House  took  up  the  report  for  consideration  on  the 


34 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


28th,  and  the  debate  lasted  for  several  weeks.  The 
funding  and  assumption  recommendations  were  se- 
verely attacked,  but  finall}^  adopted. 

During  the  debatCjOn  March  2, the  House  requested 
Hamilton  to  report  the  sources  of  revenue  in  contem- 
plation for  the  payment  of  the  assumed  state  debts, 
estimated  at  $25,000,000.  He  reported^  on  the  4th, 
proposing  an  increase  of  the  general  product  of  the 
duties  on  goods  imported  by  abolishing  the  discount 
of  ten  per  cent  allowed  by  the  act  of  July  4,  1789, 
on  goods  imported  in  American  vessels,  with  an 
addition  of  ten  per  cent  on  goods  coming  in  foreign 
vessels,  with  certain  exceptions.  He  also  recom- 
mended additional  duties  on  sugar,  molasses,  manu- 
factured tobacco,  pepper,  pimento,  spices,  salt,  and 
carriages;  licenses  on  practicers  of  law,  on  certain 
law  and  other  writings,  and  on  sales  at  auction;  and 
a tax  on  wines  and  spirits  sold  at  retail.  From  all 
these  sources  he  estimated  an  income  of  about  $1,- 
150,000. 

So  much  time  was  given  to  the  subjects  of  funding 
and  the  state  debts,  with  that  of  the  location  of  the 
seat  of  government  (which  became  allied  with  the 
latter),  that  Congress  adjourned  on  August  12  with- 
out taking  up  the  consideration  of  the  tariff. 

On  December  13,  in  answer  to  a request  made  by 
the  House  on  August  9,  Hamilton  sent  to  that  body 

1.  See  his  “Works,”  edited  by  his  son,  III.,  50;  “American  State  Papers,  Fi- 
nance,” I., 43. 


HAMILTON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


35 


his  second  report  on  the  public  credit/  suggesting 
other  provisions  which  he  thought  necessary  for  its 
support.  The  most  essentia!  thing  he  held  to  be  the 
providing  of  funds  for  the  payment  of  the  interest  on 
the  assumed  state  debts,  amounting  to  $826,624.73 
per  year.  And  as  the  best  means  of  raising  this  sum 
he  again  recommended  a duty  on  foreign  distilled 
spirits  imported,  and  also  on  spirits  distilled  within 
the  country,  the  races  to  be  those  suggested  in  his 
report  made  January  14.  The  total  amount  received 
from  these  sources  he  estimated  at  $877,500,  the  ex- 
cess over  the  interest,  if  any,  to  be  applied  towards 
increasing  the  sinking  fund. 

Objections  to  lev^dng  duties  on  importations  are 
next  noticed,  and  reasons  given  for  advocating  it. 
He  says: 

‘‘Among  other  substantial  reasons  which  recom- 
mend, as  a provision  for  the  public  debt,  duties  upon 
articles  of  consumption  in  preference  to  taxes  on 
houses  and  lands  is  this:  It  is  very  desirable,  if 
practicable,  to  reserve  the  latter  fund  for  objects  and 
occasions  which  will  more  immediately  interest  the 
sensibility  of  the  whole  community,  and  more  directly 
affect  the  public  safety.  It  will  be  a consolatory  re- 
flection that  so  capital  a resource  remains  untouched 
by  that  provision  which,  while  it  will  have  a very 
material  influence  in  favor  of  public  credit,  will  also 
be  conducive  to  the  tranquility  of  the  public  mind 
in  respect  to  external  danger,  and  will  really  operate 
as  a powerful  guarantee  of  peace.  In  proportion  as 

1.  “Works,”  III., 95;  “American  State  Papers,  Finance,”  I., 64. 


36 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


the  estimation  of  our  resources  is  exalted  in  the  eyes 
of  foreign  nations,  their  respect  for  us  must  increase, 
and  this  must  beget  a proportionable  caution  neither 
to  insult  nor  injure  us  with  levity;  while  on  the  con- 
trary the  appearance  of  exhausted  resources  (which 
would  perhaps  be  a consequence  of  mortgaging  the 
revenue  to  be  derived  from  land  for  the  interest  of 
the  public  debt)  might  tend  to  invite  both  insult  and 
injury  by  inspiring  an  opinion  that  our  efforts  to  re- 
sent or  repel  them  were  little  to  be  dreaded.” 

On  the  great  mass  of  imported  articles  he  thought 
it  evident  the  duties  had  reached  as  high  a point  as 
they  would  bear;  and  that  it  would  be  in  every  view' 
inauspicious  to  give  occasion  for  a supposition  that 
trade  alone  is  destined  to  feel  the  immediate  weight  of 
the  hands  of  the  government  in  every  new  emergency 
of  the  treasury.  However  true  as  a general  proposition 
that  the  consumer  pays  the  duty,  yet  it  will  not  follow 
that  trade  will  not  be  essentially  distressed  and  in- 
jured by  carrying  duties  on  importations  to  a height 
which  is  disproportionate  to  the  mercantile  capital  of 
a country.  It  may  not  only  be  the  cause  of  divert- 
ing too  large  a share  of  it  from  the  exigencies  of 
business,  but,  as  the  requisite  advances  to  satisfy  the 
duties  will  in  many,  if  not  in  most,  cases  precede  the 
receipts  from  the  sale  of  the  articles  on  which  they 
are  laid,  the  consequence  will  often  be  sacrifices 
which  the  merchant  cannot  afford  to  make. 

Now  followed  reports  on  the  national  bank  and  the 
mint,  after  which  came  the  one  perhaps  most  widely 


HAMILTON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


37 


known — that  on  manufactures.  It  was  sent  to  the 
House  on  December  5,  1791,  in  reply  to  a request 
made  January  15,  1790.  Other  duties  and  a desire 
to  make  as  thorough  a study  of  the  subject  as  possi- 
ble prevented  Hamilton  from  reporting  earlier.  All 
of  these  were  steps  in  the  development  of  his  finan- 
cial policy.  Lodge  sa37s^  of  this  report  that  it  was 
‘^the  most  elaborate,  and  economically  the  most  im- 
portant of  all  his  reports,  and  at  the  same  time  the 
most  far-reaching  politically.  It  rested  on  the  im- 
plied powers  of  the  Constitution,  and  was  intended 
to  do  more  than  anything  else  toward  the  develop- 
ment of  the  resources  of  the  country,  the  purpose 
nearest  Hamilton’s  heart,  and  toward  rendering  the 
nation  as  strong  and  independent  materially  as  in 
other  ways.” 

And  Morse  ‘Hn  some  respects  it  deserves  to  be 
regarded  as  the  ablest  of  all  his  state  papers.  The 
basis  was  furnished  by  a knowledge  as  wide, thorough, 
and  practical  as  has  ever  been  brought  to  the  discus- 
sion of  this  vexed  question.  The  inferences  and 
arguments  constituted  as  able  a presentation  of  the 
protectionist  theory  as  has  ever  been  made.  Argu- 
ments have  since  that  era  been  put  into  new  forms,  and 
a host  of  fresh  similes  and  comparisons  have  been  sug- 
gested. But  the  substance  of  the  reasoning  has  re- 
ceived no  material  accession,  and  a report  to  the  same 

1.  “Alexander  Hamilton”  in  “American  Statesmen”  series,  p.  108. 

2.  “Life  of  Alexander  Hamilton,”  I.,  358. 


38 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


purport  as  that  of  Hamilton  could  not  be  written  to- 
day which  should  excel  the  one  he  drew  up  in  1791.” 

In  opening  the  report^  Hamilton  refers  to  the 
change  of  opinion  which  had  recently  taken  place  in 
the  countrj^  as  to  the  expediency  of  protecting  manu- 
factures, though  there  were  still  some  who  were  un- 
friendly toward  such  a policy.  This  change  he  at- 
tributed to  various  causes.  The  embarrassment  of 
the  foreign  trade  had  led  people  to  see  the  necessity 
for  increasing  the  internal  commerce.  The  Euro- 
pean outlet  for  a great  part  of  the  surplus  of  agricul- 
tural products  having  been  cut  off,  created  a desire 
that  a more  extensive  demand  for  it  be  made  at  home. 
And  the  complete  success  which  had  come  to  manu- 
facturing enterprises  already  established  seemed  to 
justify  this  hope. 

The  chief  arguments  of  those  who  opposed  the  en- 
couragement df  manufactures  were:  That  in  every 
country,  and  particularly  in  the  United  States,  agri- 
culture is  the  most  beneficial  and  productive  object 
of  human  industry,  with  which  it  is  unwise  to  inter- 
fere; that  to  endeavor  to  force,  by  extraordinary 
government  patronage,  the  growth  of  manufactures, 
would  be  to  transfer  the  natural  current  of  industry 
from  a more  to  a less  beneficial  channel — would  sac- 
rifice general  to  particular  interests ; that  it  can  hardly 
ever  be  wise  for  a government  to  try  to  give  direc- 

1.  See  his  “Works,”  edited  by  J.  C.  Hamilton,  III.,  192;  Taussig,  “State  Papers 
and  Speeches  on  the  Tariff,”  p.  1. 


HAMILTON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


39 


tion  to  the  industry  of  its  citizens,  the  soundest  and 
simplest  policy  in  almost  every  case  being  to  leave 
the  industry  to  itself,  to  the  guidance  of  private  in- 
terest. This  policy  is  especially  recommended  to  us 
by  the  smallness  of  our  population  as  compared  with 
our  territory,  and  the  consequent  ease  with  which 
the  dependent  artisan  can  change  to  the  more  inde- 
pendent condition  of  the  farmer.  To  these  disad- 
vantages should  be  added  lack  of  pecuniary  capital. 
Extensive  manufactures  can  only  be  the  offspring  of 
a redundant,  at  least  of  a full  population,  and  it  is 
vain  to  hope  for  the  former  until  the  latter  comes. 

This  mode  of  reasoning,  said  Hamilton,  is  founded 
upon  respectable  facts  and  principles.  If  it  had 
governed  the  conduct  of  nations  more  generall}^  than 
it  has  done,  there  is  room  to  suppose  that  it  might 
have  carried  them  faster  tow^ard  prosperity  and  great- 
ness than  they  have  attained  by  the  pursuit  of  maxims 
too  widely  opposite.  Most  general  theories,  how- 
ever, admit  of  numerous  exceptions,  and  there  are 
few  if  any  of  the  political  kind  which  do  not  blend 
a considerable  portion  of  error  wdth  the  truths  they 
inculcate. 

It  ought  readily  to  be  conceded  that  the  cultivation 
of  the  earth  has  intrinsicall}^  a strong  claim  to  pre- 
eminence over  every  other  kind  of  industr}^.  But  that 
it  has  a title  to  anything  like  an  exclusive  predilec- 
tion in  any  countrj^  ought  to  be  admitted  with  great 


40 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


caution;  that  it  is  even  more  productive  than  every 
other  branch  of  industry  requires  more  evidence  than 
has  yet  been  given  in  support  of  the  position.  That 
its  real  interests  will  be  advanced  rather  than  injured 
by  the  due  encouragement  of  manufactures  may,  it 
is  believed,  be  satisfactorily  demonstrated.  And  it 
is  also  believed  that  the  expediency  of  such  encour- 
agement may  be  shown  to  be  recommended  by  the 
most  cogent  and  persuasive  motives  of  national  policy. 

He  then  advances  at  considerable  length  arguments 
in  support  of  this  position,  and  enumerates  the  prin- 
cipal circumstances  which  go  to  show  that  the  estab- 
lishment of  manufactures  contributes  much  to  the 
productive  capacity  of  society.  These  are: 

1.  The  division  of  labor. 

2.  An  extension  of  the  use  of  machinery. 

3.  Additional  employment  to  classes  of  the  com- 
munity not  ordinarily  engaged  in  the  business. 

4.  The  promoting  of  emigration  from  foreign 
countries. 

5.  The  furnishing  greater  scope  for  the  diversity 
of  talents  and  dispositions,  which  discriminate  men 
from  each  other. 

6.  The  affording  a more  ample  and  various  field 
for  enterprise. 

7.  The  creating  in  some  instances  a new,  and 
securing  in  all  a more  settled  and  steady  demand  for 
the  surplus  produce  of  the  soil. 


HAMIT.TON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


41 


The  policy  of  introducing  manufactures  into  the 
United  States  was  next  considered. 

‘‘If  the  system  of  perfect  liberty  to  industry  and 
commerce  were  the  prevailing  system  of  nations,  the 
arguments  which  dissuade  a country  in  the  predica- 
ment of  the  United  States  from  the  zealous  pursuit  of 
manufactures  would  doubtless  have  great  force.  It 
will  not  be  affirmed  that  they  might  not  be  permitted, 
with  a few  exceptions,  to  serve  as  a rule  of  national 
conduct.  In  such  a state  of  things  each  country 
would  have  the  full  benefit  of  its  peculiar  advantages 
to  compensate  for  its  deficiencies  or  disadvantages. 
If  one  nation  were  in  a condition  to  supply  manufac- 
tured articles  on  better  terms  than  another,  that  other 
might  find  an  abundant  indemnification  in  a superior 
capacity  to  furnish  the  produce  of  the  soil.  And  a 
free  exchange,  mutually  beneficial,  of  the  commodi- 
ties which  each  was  able  to  supply  on  the  best  terms, 
might  be  carried  on  between  them,  supporting  in  full 
vigor  the  industiy  of  each.  And  though  the  circum- 
stances which  have  been  mentioned,  and  others  which 
will  be  unfolded  hereafter,  render  it  probable  that 
nations  merely  agricultural  would  not  enjo}^  the  same 
degree  of  opulence  in  proportion  to  their  numbers  as 
those  wdiich  united  manufactures  with  agriculture; 
yet  the  progressive  improvement  of  the  lands  in  the 
former  might  in  the  end  atone  for  an  inferior  degree 
of  opulence  in  the  mean  time;  and  in  a case  in  which 
opposite  considerations  are  pretty  evenly  balanced, 
the  option  ought  perhaps  always  to  be  in  favor  of 
leaving  industry  to  its  own  direction. 

“But  the  system  which  has  been  mentioned  is  far 
from  characterizing  the  general  policy  of  nations. 
The  prevalent  one  has  been  regulated  by  an  opposite 
spirit.  The  consequence  of  it  is  that  the  United 


42 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


States  are  to  a certain  extent  in  the  situation  of  a 
country  precluded  from  foreign  commerce.  They 
can  indeed  without  difficulty  obtain  from  abroad  the 
manufactured  supplies  of  which  they  are  in  want; 
but  they  experience  numerous  and  very  serious  im- 
pediments to  the  emission  and  vent  of  their  own  com- 
modities, Nor  is  this  the  case  in  reference  to  a sinale 
foreign  nation  only.  The  regulations  of  several  of 
the  countries  with  which  we  have  the  most  extensive 
intercourse  throw  serious  obstructions  in  the  way  of 
the  principal  staples  of  the  United  States, 

‘‘In  such  a state  of  things  the  United  States  cannot 
exchange  with  Europe  on  equal  terms,  and  the  want 
of  reciprocity  would  render  them  the  victim  of  a sys- 
tem which  would  induce  them  to  confine  their  views 
to  agriculture  and  to  refrain  from  manufactures.  A 
constant  and  increasing  necessity  on  their  part  for 
the  commodities  of  Europe,  and  only  a partial  and 
occasional  demand  for  their  own  in  return,  could  not 
but  expose  them  to  a state  of  impoverishment  com- 
pared with  the  opulence  to  which  their  political  and 
natural  advantages  authorize  them  to  aspire.” 

Another  objection  to  a particular  encouragement 
of  manufactures  in  the  United  States  was  that  if  an 
industry  were  left  to  itself  it  would  naturally  find  its 
way  to  the  most  useful  and  profitable  employment — 
that  manufactures  would  of  themselves  grow  up  as 
soon  and  as  fast  as  the  natural  state  of  things  and 
the  public  interests  may  require.  To  this  Hamilton 
replies  that  the  influence  of  habit  and  the  spirit  of 
imitation  are  hard  to  overcome.  These  cause  men 
to  give  up  old  methods  slowly,  even  after  they  see 
new  ones  which  are  much  better.  The  fear  of  fail- 


HAMILTON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


43 


ing  in  attempts  at  new  lines  of  work  is  perhaps  a more 
serious  impediment.  More  formidable  than  either 
of  these  are  the  difficulties  of  competing  with  those 
nations  which  have  already  attained  superiority  in  a 
branch  of  industry  which  another  may  wish  to  take 
up.  But  the  gre'atest  obstacle  of  all  to  the  successful 
prosecution  of  a new  branch  of  industry  in  a country 
in  which  it  was  before  unknown  consists,  as  far  as 
the  instances  apply,  in  the  bounties,  premiums,  and 
other  aids  which  are  granted  in  a variety  of  cases  by 
the  nations  in  which  the  establishments  to  be  initiated 
are  previously  introduced.  These  must  be  overcome 
in  addition  to  the  natural  disadvantages.  It  is  there- 
fore indispensable  that  those  undertaking  new  indus- 
tries should  have  the  interference  and  aid  of  their 
own  governments. 

As  other  difficulties  in  the  way  of  protection  not  to 
be  overcome,  scarcit}^  of  hands,  dearness  of  labor, 
and  want  of  capital  were  urged,  but  their  influence 
he  thought  to  be  much  exaggerated.  In  fact,  it  might 
have  been  a sufficient  answer  to  all  the  arguments 
against  the  success  of  manufactures  in  America  to 
have  referred  to  what  had  already  been  done.  Several 
important  branches  had  grown  up  and  flourished 
surprisingly,  atlording  encouraging  assurance  of 
future  success. 

The  final  objection  noticed  is  that  a polic}^  of  en- 
couragement to  manufactures  would  tend  to  give  a 


44 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


monopoly  of  advantages  to  particular  classes  at  the 
expense  of  the  rest  of  the  community,  who  would  be 
able  to  procure  the  requisite  supplies  of  manufac- 
tured articles  on  better  terms  from  foreigners  than  at 
home;  and  who  were  reduced  to  the  necessity  of 
paying  an  enhanced  price  for  whatever  they  want  by 
every  measure  which  obstructs  the  free  competition 
of  foreign  commodities. 

It  is  not,  said  Hamilton  in  repl}^  an  unreasonable 
supposition  that  measures  which  serve  to  abridge  the 
free  competition  of  foreign  articles  have  a tendency 
to  increase  prices,  and  such  has  been  the  effect  in  a 
number  of  cases;  but  the  facts  do  not  uniformly  cor- 
respond with  the  theor3X  A reduction  of  prices  has 
in  several  instances  immediately  succeeded  the  es- 
tablishment of  a domestic  manufacture.  But  though 
the  immediate  effect  were  an  increase  in  price,  it  is 
universally  true  that  the  contrary  is  the  ultimate  effect 
of  every  successful  manufacture.  When  a domestic 
manufacture  has  attained  to  perfection  and  has  en- 
gaged in  the  prosecution  of  it  a competent  number  of 
persons,  it  invariably  becomes  cheaper.  Being  free 
from  the  heavy  charges  which  attend  the  importation 
of  foreign  commodities,  it  can  be  afforded,  and  sel- 
dom fails  to  be  sold  cheaper  in  time  than  the  foreign 
article  for  which  it  is  a substitute.  The  internal  com- 
petition which  takes  place  soon  drives  away  ever}^- 
tking  like  monopoly,  and  by  degrees  reduces  the 


HAMILTON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


45 


price  of  the  article  to  the  minimum  of  a reasonable 
profit  on  the  capital  employed.  This  reduction  bene- 
fits everybody,  and  is  particularly  advantageous  to 
farmers. 

So  much  for  the  objections  to  the  encouragement 
of  manufactures.  In  support  of  such  a policy  Ham- 
ilton urges: 

1.  There  seems  to  be  a moral  certainty  that  the 
trade  of  a country  which  is  both  manufacturing  and 
agricultural  will  be  more  lucrative  and  prosperous 
than  that  of  a country  which  is  merely  agricultural. 

2.  States  which  manufacture  as  well  as  cultivate 
offer  more  attractions  of  a diversified  market  to  foreign 
customers  and  a greater  scope  to  mercantile  enter- 
prise. 

3.  A circumstance  perhaps  not  inferior  to  the  other 
two  has  relation  to  the  stagnations  of  demand  for  cer- 
tain commodities  which,  at  some  time  or  other,  in- 
terfere more  or  less  with  the  sale  of  all.  The  nation 
which  can  bring  to  market  but  few  articles  is  likely 
to  be  more  quickly  and  sensibly  affected  by  such  stag- 
nations than  one  which  is  always  possessed  of  a great 
variety  of  commodities.  Two  important  inferences 
are  to  be  drawn  from  this:  i.  That  theie  is  always  a 
higher  probability  of  a favorable  balance  of  trade  in 
countries  in  which  manufactures  founded  on  a thriv- 
ing  agriculture  flourish,  than  in  those  confined  wholly 
or  almost  so  to  agriculture.  2.  Following  from  the 


46 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


first, that  countries  of  the  former  description  are  likely 
to  possess  more  pecuniarj’  wealth,  or  money,  than 
those  of  the  latter.  And  these  conclusions  appear  to 
be  supported  by  facts. 

The  opinion  was  frequently  heard  expressed  that 
though  the  promoting  of  manufactures  may  be  to  the 
interest  of  a part  of  the  Union,  it  was  contrary  to  that 
of  another  part;  that  there  was  on  this  point  a con- 
flict between  the  manufacturing  and  agricultural 
sections.  But  this  idea  of  such  an  opposition  is  a com- 
mon error  in  the  early  history  of  every  countr}^,  and 
is  generally  dissipated  by  experience.  Mutual  wants 
constitute  one  of  the  strongest  links  of  political  con- 
nection, and  the  extent  of  these  bears  a natural  pro- 
portion to  the  diversity  of  the  means  of  natural 
supply.  Suggestions  of  an  opposite  complexion  are 
ever  to  be  deplored  as  unfriendly  to  the  pursuit  of  one 
great  common  cause  and  to  the  perfect  harmony  of 
all  the  parts. 

Up  to  this  point  (more  than  half  the  report)  every- 
thing was  preliminary  to  Hamilton’s  main  purpose — 
the  specification  of  the  proper  objects  meriting  or  re- 
quiring encouragement,  and  the  measures  which  it 
might  be  advisable  to  adopt  in  respect  to  each.  And 
in  order  to  a better  judgment  of  the  proper  means  to 
be  used  in  the  United  States,  he  review's  those  which 
had  been  successfully  employed  in  other  countries. 
The  principal  of  these  were: 


HAMILTON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


47 


1.  Protecting  duties,  or  duties  on  those  foreign 
articles  which  are  the  rivals  of  those  domestic  ones 
intended  to  be  encouraged. 

2.  Prohibitions  of  rival  articles,  or  duties  equiv- 
alent to  prohibitions. 

3.  Prohibitions  of  the  exportation  of  the  mate- 
rials of  manufactures. 

4.  Pecuniary  bounties. 

5.  Premiums. 

6.  Exemption  of  the  materials  of  manufactures 
from  duties. 

7.  Drawbacks  of  the  duties  which  are  imposed  on 
the  materials  of  manufactures. 

8.  The  encouragement  of  new  inventions  and  dis- 
coveries at  home,  and  of  the  introduction  into  the 
country  of  such  as  may  have  been  made  in  other 
countries;  particularly  those  which  relate  to  machin- 
ery. 

. It 

9.  Judicious  regulations  for  the  inspection  of  man- 
ufactured commodities. 

10.  The  facilitating  of  pecuniary  remittances  from 
place  to  place. 

11.  The  facilitating  of  the  transportation  of  com- 
modities. 

In  the  selection  of  the  objects  proper  for  encourage- 
ment, five  circumstances  seemed  entitled  to  particular 
attention:  the  capacity  of  the  country  to  furnish  the 
raw  material;  the  degree  in  which  the  nature  of  the 


48 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


manufacture  admits  of  a substitute  for  manual  labor 
in  machinery;  the  facility  of  exjecution;  the  exten- 
siveness of  the  uses  to  which  the  article  can  be 
applied;  and  its  subserviency  to  other  interests,  par- 
ticularly the  great  one  of  national  defense.  But  there 
are  other  objects  to  which  these  circumstances  are 
little  applicable  which,  for  some  special  reasons,  may 
have  a claim  to  encouragement. 

Manufactures  of  iron  he  held  to  be  pre-eminently 
entitled  to  protection  because  they  constituted  so 
largely  the  implements  or  materials,  or  both,  of  al- 
most every  useful  occupation,  and  for  other  reasons. 
Manufactures  of  copper  (including  brass)  were  also 
of  great  extent  and  utility.  Lead,  coal,  articles  made 
of  wood  and  skins,  and  grain,  he  would  also  protect; 
likewise  flax,  hemp,  cotton,  wool,  silk,  glass,  paper, 
gunpowder,  books,  refined  sugars,  and  chocolate. 
On  several  of  these  bounties  were  recommended,  as 
he  thought  the  advantages,  when  they  were  rightly 
applied, more  than  counterbalanced  the  disadvantages. 

As  to  the  objection  that  a diminution  of  the  reve- 
nue might  result  from  an  application  of  the  recom- 
mendations of  this  report,  he  said  there  is  no  truth 
that  may  be  more  firmly  relied  upon  than  that  the 
interests  of  the  revenue  are  promoted  by  whatever 
promotes  an  increase  of  national  industry  and  wealth. 
If,  by  encouraging  the  manufacture  of  an  article  at 
home,  the  revenue  which  has  been  wont  to  accrue 


HAMILTON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


49 


from  its  importation  should  be  lessened^  an  indemni- 
lication  can  easily/  be  found,  either  out  of  the  manu- 
facture itself, or  from  some  other  object  which  may  be 
deemed  more  convenient.  But  there  is  little  room  to 
hope  that  the  progress  of  manufactures  will  so  equally 
keep  pace  with  the  progress  of  population  as  to  pre- 
vent a gradual  augmentation  of  the  duties  on  im- 
ported articles. 

Thus  was  completed  Hamilton’s  financial  policy, 
the  importance  of  which  is  sufficient  justification  for 
this  long  abstract  of  his  reports.  Under  the  con- 
ditions then  existing  a successful  financial  policy 
meant  the  successful  establishment  of  the  new  govern- 
ment. Hamilton  saw  this,  and  bent  all  his  energies 
toward  its  accomplishment.  Washington  felt  him  to 
be  almost  the  only  person  in  the  countr}^  capable  of 
coping  with  the  difficulties  of  the  secretaryship  of  the 
treasury,  and  subsequent  events  showed  that,  young 
as  he  was  (he  was  but  thirty-two  at  the  time  of  his 
appointment),  the  president  chose  wisely.  There 
was  no  public  credit.  Hamilton  created  it.  There 
was  no  circulating  medium,  no  financial  machiner}^; 
he  supplied  them.  Business  was  languishing,  and 
business  revived  under  the  treasury  measures.  There 
was  no  government,  no  system  of  life  in  it,  only  a 
paper  constitution.  Hamilton  exercised  the  power 
granted  by  the  constitution,  pointed  out  those  which 
lay  hidden  in  its  dry  clauses,  and  gave  vitality  to  the 


50 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF* 


lifeless  instrument.  He  drew  out  the  resources  of 
the  country,  he  exercised  the  powers  of  the  consti- 
tution, he  gave  courage  to  the  people,  he  laid  the 
foundations  of  national  government — and  this  was 
the  meaning  and  result  of  the  financial  policy.”^  His 
plans  were  large  and  far-reaching,  and  for  that  rea- 
son it  was  impossible  to  apply  them  immediately  in 
all  their  bearings.  But  they  in  after  times  exerted 
great  influence  on  men  of  all  parties,  his  political 
opponents  no  less  than  those  of  his  own  school. 
Even  a Democratic  Congress  in  1809  ordered  a re- 
print of  his  report  on  manufactures.  Then  and  after- 
ward it  made  itself  felt,  even  though  it  had,  as  is 
asserted,^  little,  if  any,  immediate  effect  on  legislation. 
But  that  his  policy  had  at  once  an  almost  tremendous 
influence  in  establishing  the  government  on  a firm 
basis  we  have  just  seen.  Whatever  may  have  been  H 
theoretical  conclusions  as  to  the  desirability  of  free- 
dom of  trade  among  nations,  he  had  a strong  sense 
of  the  practical,  and  saw  that  as  the  country  then 
was,  a tariff  on  imports  was  a political  necessity  for 
both  protection  and  revenue.  It  is  for  this  that  he 
deserves  praise — that  he  was  able  to  throw  theory  to 
the  winds  when  it  was  not  applicable  to  existing  con- 
ditions. And  he  will  live  in  history  as  the  man  who 
more  than  all  others  of  his  time  had  a clear  insight 
into  the  financial  measures  needful  for  the  firm  estab- 
lishment of  the  government  under  the  Constitutiooo 

1.  Lodge’s  “Alexander  Hamilton,”  p.  134. 

2.  Taussig,  “Tariff  History  of  the  United  States,”  p.  18. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Jefferson’s  position. 


The  third  session  of  the  first  Congress  met  De- 
cember 6,  1790,  at  which  session  provision  was  to 
be  made  for  the  payment  of  the  assumed  state  debts. 
A bill  conforming  to  Hamilton’s  recommendation^ 
passed  the  House  by  a vote  of  35  to  21  on  January 
27,  1791,  and  was  adopted  by  the  Senate  with  some 
amendments  on  February  12.  The  differences  were 
adjusted,  and  it  finally  passed  the  Senate  on  the  26th 
of  the  same  month.  This  bill  met  with  considerable 
objection,  especially  from  the  southern  and  western 
members.  It  was  said  that  the  evidence  of  the  in- 
sufficiency of  the  taxes  already  imposed  was  not 
conclusive;  that  the  bill  would  be  unequal  in  its  ope- 
rations, as  it  would  throw  the  greatest  burden  of  the 
tax  upon  those  parts  of  the  country  which  afforded  no 
substitute  for  ardent  spirits;  that  it  would  promote 
smuggling;  that  it  was  unfriendly  to  the  interests  of 
the  people  and  was  a most  ruinous  and  mischievous 
system  of  taxation ; that  a poll  tax  and  a tax  on  sala- 
ries, pensions,  lawyers,  and  the  like  would  be  much 
better. 

1.  See  page  34. 


51 


52 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


The  advocates  of  the  bill  said  that  an  excise  on  spir- 
its was  the  least  objectionable  that  could  be  adopted; 
that  a general  increase  of  duties  on  imports  could 
not  safely  be  attempted.  Mercantile  capital  was 
limited,  and  an  increase  of  duties  might  therefore 
induce  smuggling,  thus  diminishing  the  revenue  in- 
stead of  increasing  it.  A tax  on  consumption  was 
less  burdensome  than  a tax  on  property,  as  experi- 
ence had  proved.  It  also  proved  that  more  could  be 
drawn  from  the  people  by  indirect  and  insensible 
means  than  by  direct  and  open  taxation.  The  pro- 
posed tax  was  not  unequal,  would  not  fall  in  excess 
upon  the  poor  who  buy  in  small  quantities,  while  the 
rich  escape  duty  by  storing  their  cellars.  This  bill 
required  the  duty  to  be  paid  by  the  importer  of  foreign 
spirits  and  by  the  manufacturer  of  domestic  spirits, 
and  no  article  was  a fitter  subject  for  taxation. 

Two  minor  acts  relating  to  the  tariff  were  passed 
later;  one  on  March  2,  1791,  explaining  duties  on 
chintzes  and  colored  calicoes;  the  other  on  the  next 
day,  relative  to  duties  on  spirits,  foreign  and  domes- 
tic. And  on  March  2,  1792,  an  act  was  passed  which 
further  modified  duties  on  wines,  spirits,  and  beer, 
altered  certain  other  duties,  and  embodied  some  gen- 
eral principles. 

On  December  19,  1793,  Mr  Jefferson,  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  House  made  February  23,  1791,  re- 
ported to  Congress  ^^the  nature  and  extent  of  the 


Jefferson’s  position 


S3 


privileges  and  restrictions  of  the  commercial  inter- 
course of  the  United  States  with  foreign  nations,  and 
the  measures  which  he  thought  proper  to  be  adopted 
for  the  improvement  of  the  commerce  and  navigation 
of  the  same.”  This  report  is  by  many  considered 
the  most  able  state  paper  written  by  Jefferson  while 
he  was  secretary  of  state.  On  the  last  day  of  the 
month  he  resigned  his  office  and  retired  to  his  home 
at  ‘‘Monticello.”  He  stated  briefly  the  condition  of 
commerce  between  the  United  States  and  European 
nations,  and  asked  how  the  restrictions  on  it  might 
best  be  removed,  modified,  or  counteracted.  The 
best  method  he  thought  to  be  by  seeking  friendly  re- 
lations with  them.  At  least  it  was  far  preferable  to 
trying  to  offset  those  restrictions  by  separate  acts  of 
our  own  legislatures.  He  said: 

‘‘Instead  of  embarrassing  commerce  under  piles 
of  regulating  laws,  duties,  and  prohibitions,  could  it 
be  relieved  of  all  its  shackles  in  all  parts  of  the  w^orld, 
could  every  country  be  employed  in  producing  that 
which  nature  has  best  fitted  it  to  produce,  and  each 
be  free  to  exchange  with  others  mutual  surpluses  for 
mutual  wants,  the  greatest  mass  possible  would  then 
be  produced  of  those  things  which  contribute  to  hu- 
man life  and  human  happiness;  the  numbers  of  man- 
kind would  be  increased  and  their  condition  bettered. 

“Would  even  a single  nation  begin  with  the  United 
States  this  system  of  free  commerce,  it  would  be  ad- 
visable to  begin  it  with  that  nation ; since  it  is  one  by 
one  only  that  it  can  be  extended  to  all.  Where  the 
circumstances  of  either  party  render  it  expedient  to 


54 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


levy  a revenue  by  way  of  impost  on  commerce,  its 
freedom  might  be  modified  in  that  particular  b}^  mu- 
tual and  equivalent  measures,  preserving  it  entire  in 
all  others. 

‘‘But  should  any  nation,  contrary  to  our  wishes, 
suppose  it  may  better  find  its  advantage  by  continu- 
ing its  system  of  prohibitions,  duties,  and  regulations, 
it  behooves  us  to  protect  our  citizens,  their  commerce 
and  navigation,  b}^  counter  prohibitions,  duties,  and 
regulations  also.  Free  commerce  and  navigation  are 
not  to  be  given  in  exchange  for  restrictions  and  vex- 
ations; nor  are  the}^  likely  to  produce  a relaxation 
of  them.^’ 

Thus  Jefferson,  like  Hamilton,  showed  himself 
capable  of  rising  above  theory  when  the  facts  in  the 
case  required  it.  He  made  recommendations  in  line 
with  the  views  last  quoted,  and  on  January  3,  1794, 
Madison  introduced  into  the  House  a series  of  resolu- 
tions designed  to  carry  them  out.  The  first  declared 
it  expedient  to  increase  the  duties  on  the  tonnage 
of  vessels  having  no  commercial  treaty  with  the 
United  States,  and  on  their  manufactures  of  leather, 
metals,  wool,  cotton,  flax,  hemp,  and  silk;  and  also 
to  reduce  the  tonnage  duties  on  vessels  of  nations 
having  such  treaties.  The  second  resolution  pro- 
posed an  increase  of  duties  on  importations  from  the 
West  Indies  in  foreign  vessels  from  ports  from  which 
American  vessels  were  excluded  = 

Mr.  Smith  of  South  Carolina  opened  the  debate 
on  the  negative  on  January  13.  He  discussed  the 


Jefferson’s  position 


55 


subject  from  a purely  commercial  point  of  view.  He 
endeavored  to  prove  from  statistics  that  our  com- 
merce on  the  whole  was  as  much  favored  in  Great 
Britain  as  in  France.  He  extended  his  statement  to 
all  the  principal  articles  of  export  to  those  countries. 
The  average  annual  value  of  our  exports  for  the  three 
years  ending  October  i,  1792,  was,  to  Great  Britain, 
$8,489,830;  to  France,  $4,737,131. 

Jefferson  had  stated  in  his  report  that  many  of  our 
exports  to  England  were  re-exported  by  her,  thus 
being  subject  to  the  disadvantage  of  double  charges. 
But  supposing  she  exported  one-third  of  what  she  re- 
ceived from  us,  her  consumption  of  our  products 
would  still  exceed  that  of  France.  Mr,  Smith  did 
not  consider  large  importations  from  England  at  all 
a grievance,  but  rather  a benefit.  She  could  furnish 
us  with  such  goods  as  we  wanted;  and,  what  was  an 
advantage  to  a countr}’  wanting  capital,  could  also 
give  us  credit.  If  the  object  of  the  resolutions  had 
been  the  encouragement  of  domestic  manufactures, 
our  commercial  relations  with  Great  Britain  might  ad- 
vantageously be  altered.  But  the  object  was  to  turn 
the  trade  from  that  country  to  France.  He  admitted 
that  to  be  dependent  on  one  nation  for  a supply  of 
necessaries  was  disadvantageous;  but  artificial  meth- 
ods should  not  be  used  to  bring  about  a change.  In 
order  to  lessen  the  importations  from  Great  Britain, 
higher  duties  must  be  imposed  on  her  products  than 


56 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


on  those  of  other  countries.  This,  however,  would 
not  be  a bounty  on  the  products  of  our  country,  but 
on  those  of  foreign  nations.  In  the  opinion  of  the 
speaker  the  proposed  resolutions  would  provoke 
England  to  war,  either  of  arms  or  of  commercial  regu- 
lations. If  the  former,  her  allies  could  easily  be  in- 
duced to  join  her.  But  if  the  latter  were  preferred, 
the  course  of  one-sixth  of  her  trade  and  more  than 
one-half  of  ours  would  be  disturbed.  In  that  her 
capital  was  greater,  and  being  both  a manufacturing 
and  an  agricultural  nation, she  had  greater  advantages 
than  we.  Under  the  present  system  our  navigation 
was  rapidly  increasing,  and  our  other  great  national 
interests  were  in  a progressive  state.  He  therefore 
deemed  it  impolitic  to  disturb  the  present  order  of 
things  by  hazardous  experiments. 

Madison  replied  the  next  da}".  He  also  was  friendly 
to  a free  intercourse  with  all  nations.  But  there 
might  be  exceptions  to  this,  as  to  all  general  rules. 
Great  Britain  had  secured  by  the  navigation  act 
eleven-twelfths  of  the  shipping  and  seamen  employed 
in  her  trade.  Here  was  a departure  from  the  rule, 
and  a great  gain  resulted.  Again,  in  the  case  of  two 
nations  whose  relations  to  each  other  weie  such  that 
the  one  might  not  only  invigorate  its  own  manufac- 
tures by  duties  on  those  of  the  other,  but  might  also 
draw  from  the  other  the  workmen  themselves.  To 
allow  trade  to  regulate  itself  is,  as  our  experience  has 


Jefferson’s  position 


57 


proved  to  us,  to  allow  one  nation  to  regulate  it  for 
another.  Our  .navigation  was  not,  he  said,  on  an 
equal  footing  with  that  of  England  and  France.  The 
produce  of  all  countries  was  admitted  to  our  ports  in 
British  vessels,  while  our  own  vessels  could  carry 
only  our  own  commodities  into  English  ports;  and 
from  her  West  India  ports  they  were  entirelj^  ex- 
cluded. He  then  showed  the  effects  of  the  British 
navigation  acts  on  our  trade  with  that  country  as 
compared  with  that  with  others.  The  imports  from 
England  were  compared  with  those  from  other  nations 
and  in  every  case  the  balance  of  trade  was  found  to  be 
in  our  favor.  The  discrimination  in  favor  of  those 
nations  having  commercial  treaties  with  us  had  before 
been  sanctioned  by  the  House,  and  accorded  with 
the  practice  of  nations.  Its  tendency  was  to  procure 
beneficial  treaties  from  nations  desiring  to  be  on  an 
equality  with  other  nations  in  their  commerce. 

Prudence  dictated  the  measure  proposed.  By  it 
we  would  be  relieved  from  a state  of  commercial  de- 
pendence. For  necessary  articles  of  consumption  or 
of  defense  in  time  of  war,  we  would  not  be  depend- 
ent upon  a single  nation.  He  thought  no  injury 
would  result  from  the  adoption  of  the  measure.  It 
was  not  to  the  interest  of  England  to  retaliate.  In 
case  of  stagnation  of  trade  between  the  two  coun- 
tries, she  would  be  the  greater  sufferer.  In  propor- 
tion as  a nation  manufactures  luxuries  must  be  its 
disadvantage  in  contests  with  its  customers. 


58 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


Several  other  speakers  supported  the  resolutions. 
The  credit  given  by  the  British  merchants,  claimed 
by  the  opposition  to  be  an  advantage,  was  but  an  in- 
jury. By  it  over-trading  was  encouraged,  and  thus 
a heavy  balance  against  us  was  caused.  It  discour- 
aged home  manufactures  and  promoted  luxury.  By 
the  policy  she  pursued,  Great  Britain  had  obtained 
control  of  our  trade,  and  an  endeavor  should  be  made 
to  change  its  course.  If  we  should  purchase  the 
manufactures  of  France,  an  inducement  would  be 
held  out  to  a portion  of  her  population  to  leave  off 
agricultural  pursuits,  and  a market  opened  for  our 
produce.  Temporary  disadvantages  might  result, 
but  they  would  be  more  than  compensated  by  per- 
manent benefits.  Great  Britain  being  engaged  in  a 
dangerous  foreign  war,  it  was  deemed  a fitting  time 
To  induce  her  to  relax  somewhat  her  hitherto  rigor- 
ous  policy. 

A number  of  members  also  opposed  the  resolutions. 
Injuries  should  not  be  retaliated  under  the  cloak  of 
commercial  regulations.  If  the  resolutions  were 
adopted  it  should  be  because  they  would  promote  the 
public  interest.  Their  avowed  objects  were  to  favor 
navigation  and  manufactures.  Let  an  increase  of 
duties  on  all  foreign  vessels  be  the  encouragement  to 
navigation,  if  it  was  to  have  additional  encourage- 
ment. And  let  equal  impositions  upon  foreign 
vessels  meet  those  upon  American  vessels  in  other 


Jefferson’s  position 


59 


countries,  instead  of  encouraging  one  nation  at  the 
expense  of  another.  Several  members  w^ho  opposed 
the  resolutions  expressed  themselves  in  favor  of  a 
navigation  act  which  would  meet  the  restrictions  im- 
posed upon  our  vessels  by  other  nations  with  equal 
restrictions  upon  theirs. 

Nor  was  the  plan  likely  to  promote  domestic  man- 
ufactures. This  object  was  to  be  effected  by  laying 
duties  on  the  particular  articles  the  manufacture  of 
which  was  to  be  encouraged.  But  the  primaiy  ob- 
ject of  these  resolutions  was  to  humble  Great  Britain 
and  build  up  France,  and  not  the  increase  of  our 
agriculture,  manufactures,  or  navigation. 

The  first  resolution  was  adopted  by  a majority  of 
five.  When  the  second  came  up  for  consideration, 
a member  moved  an  amendment  designed  to  extend 
its  operations  to  all  nations.  This  motion  gave  way 
to  another  which  limited  it  to  England.  The  sub- 
ject was  then  postponed  until  the  first  Monday  in 
March.  When  it  was  again  brought  up  a debate 
ensued  which  was  no  less  animated  than  the  first, 
but  the  House  came  to  no  decision. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THE  ACT  OF  l8l6. 

With  the  close  of  the  debate  on  Madison’s  second 
resolution  the  tariff  question  seems  practically  to  have 
slumbered  for  several  years  so  far  as  Congress  was 
concerned.  Although  a number  of  minor  bills  were 
passed  from  time  to  time,  the  question  did  not  ap- 
pear prominently  in  either  House.  These  lesser  bills 
were  as  follows: 

June  5,  1794,  an  act  concerning  duties  on  spirits, 
stills,  wines,  and  teas. 

June  7,  1794,  an  act  enlarging  the  dutiable  list. 

January  29,  1795,  an  act  to  remedy  the  difficulties 
in  ascertaining  certain  duties. 

March  3,  1797,  an  act  relative  to  tea,  sugar,  vel- 
vet, plain  cotton  goods,  and  cocoa,  to  obtain  money 
to  appl}^  toward  the  payment  of  the  principal  of  the 
national  debt. 

July  8,  1797,  an  act  increasing  the  duties  on  salt 
and  salted  provisions. 

May  13,  1800,  an  act  increasing  the  duties  on 
sugar  and  wines. 

March  3,  1804,  an  act  relative  to  drawbacks. 

60 


THE  ACT  OF  l8l6 


6r 


March  27,  1804,  an  act  imposing  more  specific 
duties  on  certain  articles. 

March  3,  1807,  an  act  repealing  the  duties  on  salt. 

March  4,  1808,  an  act  to  allow  old  copper,  salt- 
petre, and  sulphur  to  come  in  free. 

Jefferson,  in  his  second  inaugural,  speaks  of  the 
revenue  derived  from  the  tariff  as  follows: 

“The  remaining  revenue  on  the  consumption  of 
foreign  articles  is  paid  cheerfully  by  those  who  can 
afford  to  add  foreign  luxuries  to  domestic  comforts. 

. . . These  contributions  enable  us  to  support  the 

current  expenses  of  the  government,  to  fulfill  con- 
tracts with  foreign  nations,  to  extinguish  the  native 
right  of  soil  within  our  limits,  and  to  apply  such  a 
surplus  to  our  public  debts  as  to  place  at  a short  day 
their  final  redemption,  and  that  redemption  once 
effected,  the  revenue  thereby  liberated  may,  by  a 
just  repartition  among  the  states, and  a corresponding 
amendment  of  the  Constitution,  be  applied  in  time  of 
feace  to  rivers,  canals,  roads,  arts,  manufactures, 
education,  and  other  great  objects  within  each  state. 
In  time  of  war,  . . . aided  by  other  resources 

reserved  for  that  crisis,  it  may  meet  within  the  year 
all  the  expenses  of  the  year  without  encroaching  on 
the  rights  of  future  generations  by  burdening  them 
with  the  debts  of  the  past.” 

But  although  the  tariff  then  in  force  supplied  the 
government  with  the  funds  necessary  for  its  running 
expenses  and  for  the  gradual  reduction  of  the  national 
debt,  it  did  not  do  in  addition  what  it  was  intended 
it  should  do — protect  American  industry.  It  proved 
in  its  effect  to  be  only  a revenue  tariff.  And  until 


62 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


the  second  war  with  England,  in  1812,  if  not  until  the 
passage  of  the  act  of  1824,  this  seems  to  have  been 
the  defect  of  all  attempted  protective  legislation.  But 
the  interruption  of  communication  with  Europe  by 
the  wars  which  followed  the  French  Revolution  fur- 
nished American  industry  with  a much  more  effective 
protection  than  it  had  hitherto  enjoyed.  In  1806  the 
coast  of  continental  Europe  was  declared  in  a state 
of  blockade  by  the  British  Orders  in  Council.  Na- 
poleon established  a similar  paper  blockade  on  the 
British  coast  by  his  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  of  1806 
and  1807.  American  trading  vessels  bound  for  the 
ports  of  one  of  these  countries  now  risked  capture  by 
the  other.  In  addition  to  this,  England  asserted  her 
right  to  search  American  vessels  at  any  place  and 
time  for  seamen  who  had  formerly  been  in  her  em- 
ploy. The  United  States  met  these  acts  by  retaliatoiy 
measures.  British  vessels  were  ordered  to  leave 
American  ports,  and  American  vessels  were  forbid- 
den by  embargo  to  sail  for  England.  In  1808  the 
non-intercourse  law  was  passed  and  renewed  in  1809. 
War  was  declared  against  England  in  1812,  and  to 
raise  funds  for  its  prosecution  the  duties  on  all  kinds 
of  imports  were  doubled.  This  increase  of  duties 
was  to  continue  until  a year  after  the  war  closed. 
But  greatly  as  American  industry  had  been  stimulated 
by  the  international  troubles  of  the  preceding  six 


THE  ACT  OF  l8l6  63 

years,  the  war  found  the  United  States  unprepared. 
As  Doctor  Bushnell  put  it:^ 

‘‘What  did  we  discover  in  our  war  of  1812  but  that 
we  had  nothing  to  equip  the  war?  Having  no 
woolen  manufacture, we  could  not  clothe  our  soldiers; 
we  could  not  even  make  a blanket.  We  had  been 
free  traders, buying  all  such  things  because  we  could 
buy  them  cheaper;  but  we  now  discovered  that  we 
might  better  have  been  making  blankets  at  double 
the  cost  for  the  last  fifty  j^ears.  The  same  was  true 
of  saltpetre  for  gunpowder,  of  guns  and  cannon  and 
swords,  and  iron  and  steel  out  of  which  to  make  them. 

. • . We  also  began  to  discover  that  the  very  in- 

significant article  of  salt,  coming  short  in  the  supply, 
was  nearly  a dead  necessity,  one  of  the  munitions  of 
war,  and  that  manufacturing  it  for  ourselves  at  double 
the  cost  would  have  been  a true  advantage. 

We  very  soon  discovered  in  the  facts  referred  to  the 
lowness  of  our  organization,  and  the  very  incomplete 
scope  of  our  industrial  equipments.  Our  products 
were  not  various  enough  to  make  a complete  nation.” 

And  Professor  Robert  Ellis  Thompson  says^  of  the 
authors  of  tariff  legislation  prior  to  1824,  that  they 
“had  as  yet  no  conception  of  the  enormous  power 
brought  to  bear  for  the  destruction  of  our  industries, 
and  the  preservation  of  the  supremacy  of  British 
manufactures.  It  was  a part  of  the  English  program 
to  keep  America  in  a position  of  colonial  depend- 
ence by  these  new  weapons  after  the  political  inde- 
pendence of  the  countrj^  had  been  acknowledged. 
A Birmingham  manufacturer  prophesied  on  the  break- 

1.  See  an  article  entitled  “Protection  and  Free  Trade,”  in  Scribner's  Monthly ^ 
II.,  267  (July,  1871). 

2.  “Political  Economy,”  p.  347. 


64 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


ing  out  of  the  war  that  the  crops  of  the  United  States 
would  be  devoured  with  vermin,  because  there  was 
not  skill  enough  in  America  to  make  a mouse-trap. 
Others  put  much  the  same  estimates  of  us  in  more  pol- 
ished forms;  the  chief  industrial  function  they  saw 
in  the  new  republic  was  its  power  to  purchase  Eng- 
lish goods.”  As  Lord  Lyndhurst  said  in  1838: 
‘‘The  United  States  of  America  was  always  consid- 
ered our  own  special  market.”  “The  extent  and 
swift,  regular  progress  of  the  American  market  for 
English  goods,”  said  Henry(afterward  Lord)  Brough- 
am) in  1813,  “we  can  easily  account  for. 

America  is  an  immense  agricultural  country,  where 
land  is  plentiful  and  cheap;  men  and  labor,  though 
quickly  increasing,  are  yet  still  scarce  and  dear 
when  compared  with  the  boundless  regions  which 
they  occupy  and  cultivate.  In  such  a country  man- 
ufactures do  not  naturally  thrive;  every  exertion,  if 
matters-  be  left  to  themselves,  goes  into  other  chan- 
nels. This  people  is  connected  with  England  by 
origin,  language,  manners,  and  institutions;  their 
tastes  go  along  with  their  convenience,  and  they 
come  to  us,  as  a matter  of  course,  for  the  articles  they 
do  not  make  themselves.” 

When  peace  was  declared  the  condition  of  the 
country  was  changed  to  a great  degree,  and  the 
administration  naturally  turned  its  attention  to  the 
adaptation  of  its  policy  to  this  changed  condition.  A 


THE  ACT  OF  l8l6 


6S 


change  in  commercial  regulations  was  rendered  nec- 
essary by  the  general  peace  of  Europe  and  that  now 
existing  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain. 
Provision  was  to  be  made  for  the  payment  of  the 
public  debtjwhich  now  amounted  to  about  $120,000,- 
000.  Further,  a large  amount  of  capital  was  invested  ' 
in  manufacturing,  and  as  it  could  not  be  transferred 
to  other  channels  without  great  loss,  it  should  in 
some  way  be  protected.  War  necessities  had  caused 
this  increase  in  manufacturing.  New  England,  the 
chief  commercial  quarter  of  the  Union,  had  seen  her 
merchant  marine  rotting  at  her  quaj^s  month  after 
month  and  year  after  year.  She  had  groaned  and 
fretted,  but  did  not  fold  her  hands  in  fretting.  She 
went  into  the  new  work  of  home  manufactures  with 
all  her  strength.  What  would  the  nation  do  to  sup- 
port these  industries  that  its  act  had  called  into  be- 
ing after  destroying  her  shipping — the  nation  into 
whose  hands  she  had  given  the  control  of  her  ma- 
terial interests?  English  capitalists  did  not  wait  for 
the  question  to  be  solved;  another  mania  of  expor- 
tation seized  them;  they  deluged  America  as  they 
were  deluging  the  continent  with  the  goods  that  the 
war  had  hitherto  kept  them  from  exporting.”^  Amer- 
ican indebtedness  to  foreigners  would  be  rapidl}^  in- 
creased by  these  large  importations,  especially  since 
the  peace  of  Europe  would  greatly  lessen  the  demand 

1.  Thompson,  loc.  cit.,  p.  349. 


66 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


for  our  agricultural  products,  and  seriously  affect  our 
carrying  trade.  Such  conditions  had  not  existed 
since  the  establishment  of  the  constitutional  govern- 
ment. 

The  first  session  of  Congress  after  the  war  met  in 
December,  1815,  two  months  before  the  double  duties 
on  imports  would  cease.  Because  of  the  state  of 
affairs  noticed  above.  President  Madison  recom- 
mended a tariff  on  imports  for  both  revenue  and  pro- 
tection. He  expressed  his  views  on  the  subject  in 
the  following  words: 

‘Hn  adjusting  the  duties  on  imports  to  the  object  of 
revenue,  the  influence  of  the  tariff  on  manufactures 
will  necessarily  present  itself  for  consideration.  How- 
ever wise  the  theory  may  be  which  leaves  to  the  sag- 
acity and  interest  of  individuals  the  application  of  their 
industr}^  and  resources,  there  are  in  this,  as  in  other 
cases,  exceptions  to  the  general  rule.  Besides  the  con- 
dition which  the  theory  itself  implies  of  a reciprocal 
adoption  by  other  nations,  experience  teaches  that  so 
many  circumstances  must  occur  in  introducing  and 
maturing  manufacturing  establishments,  especially  of 
the  more  complicated  kinds,  that  a country  ma}^  re- 
main long  without  them,  although  sufficientl}^  ad- 
vanced, and  in  some  respects  peculiarly  fitted,  for  car- 
r\  ing  them  on  with  success.  Under  circumstances 
giving  a powerful  impulse  to  manufacturing  industry, 
it  has  made  among  us  a progress  and  exhibited  an 
efficiency  which  justif}^  the  belief  that  with  a protec- 
tion not  more  than  is  due  to  the  enterprising  citizens 
whose  interests  are  now  at  stake,  it  will  become  at  an 
early  day  not  onl}^  safe  from  occasional  competitions 
from  abroad,  but  a source  of  domestic  wealth  and  even 


THE  ACT  OF  l8l6 


67 


of  external  commerce.  In  selecting  the  branches  more 
especially  entitled  to  public  patronage,  a preference  is 
obviously  claimed  by  such  as  will  relieve  the  United 
States  from  a dependence  on  foreign  supplies,  ever 
subject  to  casual  failures,  for  articles  necessary  for 
the  public  defense  or  connected  with  the  primary 
wants  of  individuals.  It  will  be  an  additional  recom- 
mendation of  particular  manufactures,  where  the 
materials  are  extensively  drawn  from  our  agriculture, 
and  consequently  impart  and  insure  to  that  great  fund 
of  national  prosperity  and  independence  an  encour- 
agement which  cannot  fail  to  be  rewarded.” 

On  December  8,  1815,  Mr.  A.  J.  Dallas,  secretary 
of  the  treasury,  sent  to  Congress  a report  on  the  state 
of  the  finances  in  which  he  made  the  following  propo- 
sitions:^ 

1.  That  the  act  of  July  1,1812,  imposing  a double 
duty  on  imports,  and  the  act  of  July  29,  1813,  im- 
posing a duty  on  imported  salt,  be  continued  in  force 
until  June  30,  1816. 

2.  That  the  act  of  July  24,  1813,  imposing  a duty 
on  sugar  refined  in  the  United  States,  and  the  act  of 
August  2,  1813,  imposing  a duty  on  banknotes,  notes 
discounted,  and  bills  of  exchange,  be  continued 
without  limitation  but  with  certain  necessary  amend- 
ments; and  that  the  act  of  December  15,1814,  impos- 
ing duties  on  carriages  and  harness,  and  so  much  of 
the  act  of  December  23,  1814,  as  related  to  duties  on 
auction  sales  and  to  increasing  the  rates  of  postage, 
be  allowed  to  remain  in  force. 

1.  “American  State  Papers,  Finance,”  III.,  16. 


68 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


3.  That  the  direct  tax  be  reduced  from  $6,000,000 
to  $35000j000  per  year;  that  the  duties  on  distilled 
spirits  be  discontinued  after  June  30,  1816,  and  that 
the  duty  on  licenses  to  distillers  be  then  raised  to 
double  the  amount  fixed  by  the  act  of  July  24,  1813; 
and  that  the  duties  on  licenses  to  retailers  of  wines, 
spirituous  liquors,  and  foreign  merchandise  be  re- 
duced to  the  rates  of  1813, 

4.  That  the  acts  of  January  18  and  February  27, 
1815,  imposing  duties  on  various  articles  manufact- 
ured for  sale  within  the  United  States,  and  the  act 
of  January  18,  1815,  imposing  duties  on  household 
furniture  and  watches,  be  repealed. 

5.  That  the  act  of  March  3,  1815,  further  to  pro- 
vide for  the  collection  of  duties  on  imports  and 
tonnage,  and  the  act  of  March  3,  1815,  to  fix  the  com- 
pensations and  increase  the  responsibility  of  the  col- 
lectors of  the  direct  tax  and  internal  duties,  and  for 
other  purposes  connected  with  their  collection,  so  far 
as  it  relates  to  the  compensation  of  the  collectors  of 
the  direct  tax  and  internal  duties,  be  continued  in 
force  without  limitation. 

This  report  was  followed  by  another^  on  February 
13,  1816,  comprehending: 

1.  A view  of  the  tariff  of  the  United  States  and 
its  incidents  upon  the  peace  establishment. 

2.  A statement  of  the  general  principles  for  re- 

1.  See  loc.cit.,  p.  85. 


THE  ACT  OF  l8l6  69 

forming  the  tariff,  including  the  means  of  enforce- 
ment. 

3.  A general  tariff  proposed  for  the  consideration 
of  Congress. 

In  framing  the  propositions  embraced  in  the  third 
part  of  the  report,  three  great  objects  were  principally 
regarded:  First,  that  of  raising  by  duties  on  im- 
ports and  tonnage  the  proportion  of  the  public  reve- 
nue which  must  be  drawn  from  that  source.  Second, 
that  of  conciliating  the  various  national  interests  of 
agriculture,  manufactures,  trade,  and  navigation. 
Third,  that  of  rendering  the  collection  of  duties  con- 
venient, equal,  and  certain. 

The  annual  revenue  needed  to  meet  the  necessary 
annual  expenses  of  the  government,  independent  of 
any  provision  for  public  institutions  and  public  im- 
provements, was  estimated  at  $24,000,000. 

The  schedule  of  duties  proposed  by  Mr.  Dallas 
provided  for  a rather  lengthy  free  list;  for  ad  valorem 
duties  ranging  from  seven  and  one-half  to  thirty-five 
per  cent;  and  for  an  extensive  specific  list.  He  also 
recommended  an  additional  duty  of  twelve  and  one- 
half  per  cent  on  all  goods  imported  in  foreign  vessels 
unless  excepted  by  act  of  Congress  or  from  nations 
in  treat}^  with  us.  Further  recommendations  were 
made  for  tonnage  duty,  warehouse  money,  draw- 
backs and  bounties,  and  additions  to  specific  and  ad 
valorem  duties.  The  new  duties  were  estimated  to 


70 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


produce  an  annual  increase  in  the  revenue  of  about 
$5,000,000,  making  the  total  amount  raised  $17,- 
000,000. 

Congress  received  many  petitions  urging  it  to 
adopt  a protective  tariff,  those  from  the  cotton  man- 
ufacturers attracting  most  notice.^  The  war  had 
greatly  stimulated  the  manufacture  of  cotton  goods 
in  this  country,  and  it  had  become  an  object  of  much 
importance  to  the  states  engaged  in  it.  The  industry 
gave  employment  to  100,000  persons  and  produced 
goods  to  the  value  of  more  than  $24,000,000  annu- 
ally. And  as  it  consumed  cotton  grown  in  the  south, 
the  prosperity  of  that  section  was  greatly  promoted. 
The  tariff  measure  therefore  received  the  support  of 
many  southern  members,  notably  that  of  Calhoun. 
And  Clay,  then  as  ever  after,  was  a strong  advocate 
of  protection.  On  the  other  hand,  Webster  and 
most  of  the  New  England  members,  with  John  Ran- 
dolph of  Virginia,  opposed  it.  The  Democrats  now 
found  it  to  their  interest  to  use  the  arguments  of 
Hamilton.  But  a few"  years  later  the  relative  po- 
sitions of  the  parties  were  reversed. 

By  this  act  the  duty  on  coarse  cottons  costing 
twenty-five  cents  or  less,  which  must  all  be  deemed 
to  have  cost  twenty-five  cents  a square  yard,  was 
fixed  at  twenty-five  per  cent.  On  woolens, twenty-five 
per  cent,  to  be  reduced  to  twenty  after  three  years. 

l.See  loc.  cit.,  pp.  32,  52,  82,  and  103. 


THE  ACT  OF  l8l6.  7 1 

On  maufactures  of  hemp,  iron,  steel,  brass,  copper, 
etc.,  twenty  per  cent.  On  bar  iron,  $1.50  per  hun- 
dredweight. On  nails,  spikes,  and  bolts,  four  cents 
per  pound.  On  window  glass,  from  $2.50  to  $3.25 
per  hundred  feet.  On  hemp,  $1.50  per  hundred- 
weight. On  spirits,  from  thirty-eight  to  seventy-five 
cents  per  gallon.  The  dutiable  articles  were  numer- 
ous, and  duties  varied  according  to  the  ability  of  the 
country  to  supply  the  demand.  Those  of  which  the 
home  production  was  sufficient  to  meet  this  demand 
were  rated  higher  than  those  the  demand  for  which 
could  be  only  partially  supplied,  or  which  could  not 
be  supplied  at  all.  In  1816  the  average  rate  of  duties 
on  all  importations  was  24.97  per  cent;  in  1817  it 
rose  to  32.90  per  cent;  but  in  1818,  owing  to  heavy 
importations,  it  fell  to  16.78  per  cent. 


The  vote  in  the  House  on  the  tarifl  bill  of  1816, 
by  sections  of  the  country,  was  as  follows: 


New  England 

Yeas, 

16 

Nays. 

10 

Absent, 

16 

Middle  States 

44 

10 

13 

Western  States 

14 

3 

5 

Southern  States 

H 

31 

7 

Total 

88 

54 

41 

In  the  Senate  the 

vote  was 

twenty-five 

yeas  to 

seven  nays. 

This  tariff,  too, fell  short  of  what  was  expected  and 
intended,  being  a sort  of  compromise  between  pro- 


72 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


tection  and  free  trade.  Its  operation  covered  a period 
of  distress  and  embarrassment.  Bankruptcies  were 
frequent,  and  the  value  of  all  kinds  of  home  produce 
rapidly  declined,  as  well  as  that  of  property.  The 
farmers,  who  had  petitioned  largely  against  a pro- 
tective tariff,  especiall}^  suffered,  and  ‘talked  as  if 
the  government  could  repeal  the  English  corn  laws.” 
The  manufacture  of  iron  became  almost  extinct, 
w'hile  that  of  earthenware,  glass,  and  white  and  red 
lead  wholly  disappeared.  Congress  continually  re- 
ceived petitions  from  manufacturers  for  even  a frac- 
tion of  the  protection  enjoyed  by  their  English  and 
French  rivals.  Some  state  legislatures  took  action 
in  the  matter,  and  their  representatives  in  Congress 
were  requested  to  endeavor  to  procure  such  modi- 
fication of  the  tariff  as  would  encourage  the  employ- 
ment of  capital  and  industry  in  home  manufactures. 

In  his  first  inaugural  in  1817  President  Monroe 
expressed  himself  regarding  the  encouragement  of 
home  industry  as  follows: 

‘‘Our  manufactures  will  require  the  systematic  and 
fostering  care  of  the  government.  Possessing  as  we 
do  all  the  raw^  materials,  the  fruit  of  our  own  soil 
and  industry,  we  ought  not  to  depend  in  the  degree 
we  have  done  on  supplies  from  other  countries. 
While  we  are  thus  dependent  the  sudden  event  of 
war,  unsought  and  unexpected,  cannot  fail  to  plunge 
us  into  the  most  serious  difficulties.  It  is  important, 
too,  that  the  capital  which  nurtures  our  manufactures 
should  be  domestic,  as  its  influence  in  that  case,  in- 


thp:  act  of  i8i6 


73 


stead  of  exhausting,  as  it  may  do  in  foreign  hands, 
would  be  felt  advantageously  on  agriculture  and  every 
other  branch  of  industry.  Equally  important  is  it  to 
provide  at  home  a market  for  our  raw  materials,  as 
by  extending  the  competition  it  will  enhance  the 
price  and  protect  the  cultivator  against  the  casualties 
incident  to  foreign  markets.” 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  ACT  OF  1824. 

After  the  tariff  act  of  i8i6  was  passed,  the  subject 
again  seems  to  have  received  little  attention  from 
Congress  for  a few  years.  That  act,  as  has  been 
seen,  protected  very  few  manufacturing  interests  ex- 
cept coarse  cottons,  and  hence  afforded  but  a limited 
encouragement  to  the  industry  of  the  nation.  To 
remedy  this  defect  a bill  was  introduced  into  the 
House  during  the  session  of  1819-20,  and  passed  that 
body  by  a vote  of  eighty-eight  to  sevent3^-one.  In 
the  Senate,  however,  it  was  defeated  by  a vote  of 
twenty-two  to  twenty-one  on  a motion  to  postpone  it 
until  the  next  session.  To  enable  comparison  with  a 
later  vote,  the  votes  of  the  different  states  in  the 


House  are  here  given 

. 

Massachusetts  (in- 

Yeas. 

Nays. 

Absent. 

cluding  Maine) 

10 

6 

4 

New  Hampshire 

— 

5 

I 

Rhode  Island 

2 

— ■ 

Connecticut 

6 

I 

— 

Vermont 

I 

2 

3 

New  York 

25 

— 

2 

New  Jersey 

74 

6 

— 

— ■ 

THE  ACT  OF  1 824 


75 


Pennsylvania 

Yeas. 

22 

Nays. 

I 

Absent. 

Delaware 

— 

2 

— 

Maryland 

I 

5 

3 

Virginia 

I 

15 

7 

North  Carolina 

I 

1 1 

I 

South  Carolina 

I 

6 

2 

Georgia 

— 

5 

I 

Kentucky 

4 

3 

2 

Tennessee 

6 

— . 

Ohio 

6 

— 

_ 

Indiana 

I 

— 

— 

Illinois 

I 

— 

_ 

Louisiana 

— 

I 

— 

Mississippi 

— 

I 

— 

Alabama 

— 

I 

— 

Total 

88 

71 

26 

When  the  first  session  of  the  eighteenth  Congress 
met,  December  i,  1823,  the  president  recommended, 
as  he  did  at  the  preceding  session,  a review  of  the 
tariff  for  making  it  more  protective.’  This  revision 
and  modification  of  the  tariff  was  the  most  important 
work  of  that  session.  A bill  proposing  an  increase 
of  duties  on  imports  was  introduced,  and  after  a dis- 
cussion of  more  than  two  months  it  passed  the  House 
on  April  16,  1824,  by  a small  majority — 107  yeas  to 
102  nays.  The  Senate  made  some  amendments 
which  the  House  would  not  accept, but  the  differences 
were  finally  settled  by  a committee  of  conference. 
The  vote  in  the  Senate  on  the  final  passage  of  the 
bill  was  25  yeas  to  22  na37S.  The  duty  on  cotton 


^6  THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 

cloth  was  fixed  at  33  per  cent;  on  woolen  goods,  at 
30  and  33i  per  cent;  on  iron  manufactures,  at  from 
three  to  five  c^nts  per  pound;  on  iron  bars,  at  $1.50 
a hundredweight.  The  average  rate  on  all  impor- 
tations rose  in  1825  to  47.72  per  cent;  in  1827  to 
50.94.  On  the  dutiable  articles  the  rates  averaged 
50.54  per  cent  in  1825,  and  53.76  in  1827. 

In  the  House  the  debate  on  the  bill  was  one  of 
great  interest,  and  showed  extensive  knowledge  and 
an  unusual  degree  of  talent  on  the  part  of  those  who 
participated  in  it.  As  in  1816,  Clay  and  Webster 
were  on  opposite  sides,  the  former  being  the  chief 
advocate,  the  latter  the  chief  opponent  of  the  meas- 
ure. A large  amount  of  money  was  invested  by 
New  England  in  manufacturing,  but  not  sufficient  to 
make  it  a controlling  industry.  Before  the  war  the 
vote  of  that  section  was  for  free  trade;  now  it  was 
divided — fifteen  3’eas  to  twenty-three  nays. 

In  the  south  a large  majority  now  opposed  the 
policy  which  had  built  up  their  cotton-growing  in- 
terests, and  had  given  them  a home  market  for  it. 
Being  strongly  opposed  by  these  two  sections,  the 
measure  w^as  carried  by  the  votes  of  the  middle  and 
western  states.  Pennsylvania  may  be  said  to  have 
taken  the  lead  in  this  contest  for  protection.  Her 
citizens,  her  state  legislature,  her  representatives  in 
Congress,  all  contributed  largel}^  by  their  persever- 
ing efforts  to  the  final  success.  The  country  now 


THE  ACT  OF  1824 


77 


had  for  the  first  time  a tariff  that  was  in  both  purpose 
and  effect  protective.  But  it  had  one  serious  defect; 
the  duties  on  woolens,  in  both  amount  and  manner 
of  imposition,  were  far  from  satisfactory.  While 
other  manufactures  were  in  a flourishing  condition, 
this  languished.  As  we  shall  see,  a bill  to  remedy  this 
passed  the  House  in  1827,  but  was  lost  in  the  Senate, 
which  it  reached  too  late  for  passage. 

The  vote  on  the  act  of  1824  is  here  given  for  com- 
parison with  that  on  the  act  of  1816  and  that  on  the 
bill  which  passed  the  House  in  1820. 


Yeas. 


Maine 

I 

Massachusetts 

I 

New  Hampshire 

I 

Rhode  Island 

2 

Connecticut 

5 

Vermont 

5 

New  York 

26 

New  Jersey 

6 

Pennsylvania 

24 

Delaware 

I 

Maryland 

3 

Virginia 

I 

North  Carolina 

— 

South  Carolina 

Georgia 

— 

Kentucky 

II 

Tennessee 

2 

Ohio 

H 

Indiana 

2 

Illinois 

I 

Louisiana 

— 

Naj^s. 

6 

1 1 ' 

5 

I 

8 

I 

6 

21 

13 

9 

7 

7 


3 


78 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


Yeas.  Nays. 

Mississippi  — i 

Alabama  — 3 

Missouri  i 

Total  107  102 


Three  votes  were  not  cast  that  would  have  raised  the 
affirmative  to  no — those  of  Mr.  Clay,  the  speaker; 
Mr.  Ingham  of  Pennsylvania;  and  Mr.  Jennings  of 
Indiana.  The  last  two  were  absent.  There  was  a 
vacanc}^  in  the  Massachusetts  delegation  which,  had 
it  been  filled,  would  probably  have  been  given  in  the 
negative. 

Mr.  Niles  thus  analyzes  the  vote:^ 

‘‘This  little  table  presents  much  matter  for  serious 
reflection  and  remark:  It  shows  a wonderful  falling 
off  in  the  eastern  states.  Maine,  Massachusetts, 
and  New  Hampshire,  out  of  21  votes  present  in  1818, 
gave  10  for  the  tariff;  and  now,  out  of  25  votes,  the}^ 
give  only  three.  There  has  also  been  an  unexpected 
change  in  the  representation  of  New  York  to  the 
same  side — but  New  Jerse}’,  Pennsylvania,  etc., 
stood  their  ground,  and  the  union  of  the  west  saved 
the  bill.  Virginia  and  all  the  rest  of  the  states  south 
and  southwest  have  also  been  consistent — they  gave 
three  votes  for  the  tariff  on  each  occasion  ; but  two 
of  these  are  now  from  Tennessee,  and  North  and 
South  Carolina  were  unanimous  against  the  bill. 

“The  states  may  be  classed  as  follows: 

'"^Navigating  and  fishing  states.  Maine,  New 
Hampshire,  and  Massachusetts — say  23  against  and 
3 for  a tariff  for  the  promotion  of  domestic  industry. 

1.  Weekly  Register,  XXVI. , 113. 


THE  ACT  OF  1 824  79 

Manujacturing.  Rhode  Island  and  Connecticut — 
7 for  and  i against. 

Grain  growing.  Vermont,  New  York,  New  Jer- 
sey, Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  In- 
diana, Illinois,  Missouri~94  for  and  9 against. 

Tobacco  planting  and  grain  growing.  Maryland 
— 6 against  and  3 for. 

Tobacco  and  cotton  planting.  Virginia,  North 
Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Mississippi,  Ala- 
bama— 54  against  and  i for. 

‘‘  Cotton  and  grain  growing.  Tennessee — 7 against 
and  2 for. 

‘‘  Sugar  and  cotton  'planting.  Louisiana — 3 against, 

‘‘The  navigating  and  fishing  states  opposed  the 
bill  because  of  an  apprehension  that  it  would  injure 
commerce;  the  grain  growing  states  supported  it  be- 
cause of  a belief  that  its  passage  would  benefit  agri- 
culture; and  the  planting  states  united  with  the 
navigating  against  the  bill  for  the  reason  that  it  would 
be  injurious  to  agriculture!  On  this  ground  the  last 
two  classes  are  at  issue;  but  if  we  deduct  the  mem- 
bers from  the  grain  growing  states  that  we  may  sup- 
pose were  influenced  by  other  than  considerations 
specially  favorable  to  agriculture,  it  will  appear  that 
what  maybe  called  the  agriculUiral  vote  on  the  tariff 
was  almost  two  for  to  one  against  it;  that  is,  95  grain 
growing  to  57  planting. 

“The  unanimity  of  the  navigating  states  against  the 
wishes  of  the  grain  growing  states  will  surprise  those 
who  recollect  that  the  states  first  referred  to  were  in- 
debted to  the  last  for  the  passage  of  every  law  that 
protected  and  established  their  navigation ; such  as 
the  discriminating  duties  on  imports  and  tonnage, the 
building  of  certain  frigates,  etc., ‘for  the  protection  of 
commerce  against  the  Barbary  powers;’  and  in  1796 


8o 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


the  establishment  of  a regular  navy  ‘for  the  protec- 
tion of  commerce’  in  general.” 

And  he  notices  what  he  calls  the  consistency  of 
Virginia  and  other  states. 

‘^In  former  times  they  said,  ‘Let  commerce  protect 
itself,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  it;  we  will  send 
off  our  produce  on  board  of  such  vessels  as  will  carry 
it  the  cheapest;  it  does  not  make- a cent’s  difference 
to  us  whether  our  tobacco  is  shipped  on  board  of  an 
American  or  foreign  bottom  ; let  the  business  be  open 
to  competition.’  But  now  they  say,  though  not  so 
much  opposed  to  the  protection  of  commerce  as  here- 
tofore, ‘Let  our  manufactures  protect  themselves;’ 
and  in  support  of  the  proposition  use  precisely  the 
same  arguments  that  were  used  30  years  ago  against 
navigation.” 

Mr.  Clay,  in  his  speech  on  March  31,  favoring  the 
bill,  said:^ 

‘‘Two  classes  of  politicians  divide  the  people  of 
the  United  States.  According  to  the  system  of  one, 
the  produce  of  foreign  industry  should  be  subject  to 
no  other  impost  than  such  as  may  be  necessary  to 
provide  a public  revenue;  and  the  produce  of  Ameri- 
can industry  should  be  left  to  sustain  itself,  if  it  can, 
with  no  other  than  that  incidental  protection,  in  its 
competition  at  home  as  well  as  abroad  with  foreign 
articles.  According  to  the  system  of  the  other  class, 
whilst  they  agree  that  the  imposts  should  be  mainly, 
and  may  under  any  modification  be  safely  relied  on 
as  a fit  and  convenient  source  of  public  revenue,  they 
would  so  adjust  and  arrange  the  duties  on  foreign 
fabrics  as  to  afford  a gradual  but  adequate  protection 
to  American  industry,  and  lessen  our  dependence  on 

1.  This  speech  is  given  in  full  in  Niles’  “Register,**  XXVI.,  378. 


THE  ACT  OF  1 824 


81 


foreign  nations  by  securing  a certain  and  ultimately 
cheaper  and  better  supply  of  our  own  wants  from  our 
own  abundant  resources.  Both  classes  are  equally 
sincere  in  their  respective  opinions,  equally  honest, 
equally  patriotic,  and  desirous  of  advancing  the  pros- 
perity of  the  country.  In  the  discussion  and  consid- 
eration of  these  opposite  opinions  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  which  has  the  support  of  truth  and  rea- 
son, we  should  exercise  every  indulgence  and  the 
greatest  spirit  of  mutual  moderation  and  forbearance. 
And  in  our  deliberations  on  this  great  question  we 
should  look  fearlessly  and  truly  at  the  actual  condition 
of  the  country,  retrace  the  causes  which  have 
brought  us  into  it,  and  snatch  if  possible  a view  of 
the  future.  We  should  above  all  consult  experience 
— the  experience  of  other  nations,  as  well  as  our  own, 
as  our  truest  and  most  unerring  guide.” 

He  next  alluded  to  the  general  distress  then  pre- 
vailing, naming  many  facts  which  indicated  it,  and 
giving  its  cause.  Our  imports  had  not  increased  as 
rapidly  as  they  should,  and  he  thought  it  unlikely 
that  the  foreign  market  would  improve  since,  with 
other  reasons,  Europe  would  hardly  abandon  her  ow  n 
agriculture  to  foster  ours.  A home  market  should  be 
created  and  the  support  given  to  foreign  industry 
should  be  used  to  stimulate  our  own.  The  superiority 
of  the  home  market  consists,  first,  in  its  greater 
steadiness  and  certainty;  second,  in  the  creation  of 
reciprocal  interest;  third,  in  its  greater  security ; and 
fourth,  in  an  ultimate  increase  of  consumption,  and 
consequently  of  comfort,  from  increased  quantity 
and  reduced  prices. 


82 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


The  great  desideratum  of  political  economy  is  so 
to  apply  the  aggregate  industry  of  a nation  as  to  pro- 
duce the  greatest  amount  of  wealth.  Labor  is  the 
source  of  wealth,  but  not  natural  labor  only.  The 
power  of  machinery  has  not  been  duly  appreciated. 
It  is  to  this  that  England  is  indebted  for  her  enor- 
mous wealth,  her  artificial  or  machine  labor  being 
equal  to  200,000,000  able-bodied  laborers.  In  con- 
sequence of  this  she  has  a vast  revenue  and  prosper- 
ous commerce.  In  1822  the  value  of  her  imports  of 
raw  cotton  was  '$25, 000, 000.  After  manufacturing 
this  into  various  articles  and  supplying  the  home 
market,  the  profit  on  the  remainder,  which  was  ex- 
ported, was  $73,000,000  above  the  import  cost  of 
the  whole. 

Mr.  Clay  then  contrasted  the  condition  of  England, 
with  her  protective  polic}^ — self-poised, resting  on  her 
own  internal  resources,  possessing  a home  market 
carefully  cherished  and  guarded,  prepared  for  any 
emergenc}^  of  peace  or  war,  with  our  own  condition 
— depending  upon  the  state  of  foreign  powers,  con- 
fiding in  a foreign  to  the  neglect  of  a domestic  policy, 
all  their  movements  affecting  our  interests,  our  pros- 
perity depending  on  their  wars  and  misfortunes,  our 
system  being  anomalous,  unfitted  for  either  war  or 
peace,  and  succeeding  only  in  the  rare  occurrence 
of  a general  war  throughout  Europe.  The  numerous 
objections  to  the  bill  were  grouped  by  Mr.  Clay  uo- 


THE  ACT  OF  1 824 


83 


der  eleven  heads  and  ably  answered.  He  enumerated 
the  great  difficulties  the  friends  of  the  measure  had 
to  encounter,  and  closed  with  these  words: 

‘^For  some  of  these  or  other  causes  the  bill  may 
be  postponed,  thwarted,  defeated.  But  the  cause  is 
the  cause  of  the  country, and  it  must  and  will  prevail. 
It  is  founded  on  the  interests  and  affections  of  the 
people.  It  is  as  native  as  the  granite  deeply  im- 
bosomed  in  our  mountains.  And  in  conclusion  I 
would  pray  God  in  His  infinite  mercy  to  avert  from 
our  country  the  evils  which  are  impending  over  it, 
and  by  enlightening  our  councils  to  conduct  us  into 
that  path  which  leads  to  riches,  to  greatness,  to 
glory.” 

Of  this  speech  Mr.  Niles  says:^ 

‘Ht  does  not  so  much  partake  of  that  splendid  elo- 
quence for  which  the  speaker  is  so  celebrated,  as  of 
extensive  research,  acute  discrimination,  and  practi- 
cal truth;  and  if  the  opponents  of  the  system  will 
read  it  considerately,  it  will  cause  them  to  retire 
from  many  of  their  objections  to  the  bill,  if  not  recon- 
cile most  of  them  to  its  principle.” 

Mr.  Webster  replied  to  Mr.  Clay  on  April  2.^ 
He  dissented  entirely  from  the  picture  of  distress 
which  Mr.  Clay  had  drawn,  considering  it  unwar- 
ranted by  the  real  condition  of  the  country.  His 
statements  regarding  our  exports  were  also  exagger*- 
ated.  ‘^The  general  result  of  a fair  examination  of 
the  present  condition  of  things  seems  to  me  to  be  that 
there  is  a considerable  depression  of  prices  and  cur- 

1.  Loc.  cit.,  p.  113. 

2,  This  speech  is  also  given  in  full  by  Niles,  loc.  cit.,  p.  409. 


84 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


tailment  of  profit;  and  in  some  parts  of  the  country, 
it  must  be  admitted,  there  is  a degree  of  pecuniary 
embarrassment  arising  from  the  difficulty  of  paying 
debts  which  were  contracted  when  prices  were  high. 
With  these  qualifications  the  general  state  of  the 
country  may  be  said  to  be  prosperous,  and  these  are 
not  sufficient  to  give  to  the  whole  face  of  affairs  any 
appearance  of  general  distress.”  But  to  ascribe  what 
depression  there  was  to  the  single  cause  of  diminu- 
tion of  exports  he  held  to  be  a mistake.  The  restor- 
ation of  peace  in  Europe  and  America  undoubtedly 
had  much  to  do  with  it  by  causing  a great  fall  in 
prices  throughout  the  commercial  world. 

As  to  home  manufactures,  do  they  need  further 
protection?  And  if  so,  how  much?  ^‘Gentlemen  tell 
us  that  they  are  in  favor  of  domestic  industry;  so 
am  I.  They  would  give  it  protection ; so  would  I. 
But  then  all  domestic  industry  is  not  confined  to 
manufactures.  The  employments  of  agriculture, 
commerce,  and  navigation  are  all  branches  of  the 
same  domestic  industry ; they  all  furnish  employment 
for  American  capital  and  American  labor.  And  when 
the  question  is  whether  new  duties  shall  be  laid  for 
the  purpose  of  giving  further  protection  to  particular 
manufactures,  ever}^  reasonable  man  must  ask  himself 
both  whether  the  proposed  new  encouragement  be 
necessary,  and  whether  it  can  be  given  without  in- 
justice to  other  branches  of  industry.” 


THE  ACT  OF  1 824 


8S 

Regarding  the  protective  policy  of  England  he  re- 
marked that  more  liberal  notions  were  becoming 
prevalent  there  on  the  subject;  that  the  policy  of  re- 
straints and  prohibitions  was  getting  out  of  repute. 

have  never  said  that  prohibitory  laws  did  not  exist 
in  England;  we  all  know  they  do ; but  the  question 
is,  does  she  owe  her  prosperity  and  greatness  to  these 
laws?  I venture  to  say  that  such  is  not  the  opinion  of 
public  men  now  in  England,  and  the  continuance  of 
the  laws,  even  without  any  alteration,  would  not  be 
evidence  that  their  opinion  is  different  from  w^hat  I 
have  represented  it;  because  the  laws  having  existed 
long  and  great  interests  having  been  built  up  on  the 
faith  of  them,  they  cannot  now  be  repealed  without 
great  and  overwhelming  inconvenience.  Because 
a thing  has  been  wrongly  done  it  does  not  therefore 
follow  that  it  can  now  be  undone;  and  this  is  the 
reason  as  I understand  it  upon  which  exclusion,  pro- 
hibition, and  monopoly  are  suffered  to  remain  in  any 
degree  in  the  English  system ; and  for  the  same  rea- 
son it  will  be  wise  in  us  to  take  our  measures  on  all 
subjects  of  this  kind  with  great  caution.  We  ma}’^ 
not  be  able,  but  at  the  hazard  of  much  injury  to  in- 
dividuals hereafter,  to  retrace  our  steps.” 

He  next  referred  to  drawbacks  (the  warehouse 
system^  as  it  was  called  in  England),  the  recent  prop- 
osition of  parliament  to  abolish  the  tax  on  imported 
wool,  and  the  ‘‘balance  of  trade.”  On  the  latter  point 


86 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


he  differed  from  the  popular  notion  that  whenever 
the  value  of  imports  exceeded  that  of  exports — if  a 
nation  buys  more  than  it  sells — a debt  is  created  to 
the  extent  of  the  difference  and  that  the  balance  of 
trade  is  unfavorable.  He  held  that  the  excess  of  im- 
ports over  exports  usually  showed  the  gains,  not  the 
losses  of  trade,  because  the  value  of  goods  imported 
was  augmented  by  transportation. 

But  Mr.  Webster’s  argument  is  too  long  to  give 
even  a brief  abstract  of  the  whole.  He  spoke  of  the 
exportation  of  specie;  of  the  high  rate  of  exchange; 
stated  some  objections  of  a more  general  nature  to 
Mr.  Clay’s  observations;  went  into  an  examination 
of  the  bill  as  to  its  probable  effects  upon  some  of  the 
great  interests  of  the  country;  and  concluded  by 
saying  there  were  some  parts  of  the  bill  of  which  he 
highly  approved,  that  in  others  he  acquiesced,  but 
that  those  to  which  he  had  stated  his  objections  ap- 
peared to  him  so  destitute  of  all  justice,  so  burden- 
some and  so  dangerous  to  that  interest  which  had  so 
steadily  enriched,  gallantly  defended,  and  proudly 
distinguished  us,  that  nothing  could  prevail  upon 
him  to  give  the  bill  his  support. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


JACKSON  AND  THE  TARIFF. — THE  WOOLENS  BILL.” 

THE  HARRISBURG  CONVENTION. 

The  candidacy  of  General  Jackson  for  the  presi- 
dency in  1828  seems  to  have  brought  the  tariff  ques- 
tion into  considerable  prominence.  When  the  tariff 
act  of  1824  was  under  discussion  he  was  a member 
of  the  Senate,  and  his  support  of  the  measure  at  that 
time  placed  him  in  the  estimation  of  the  public 
among  the  advocates  of  a high  protective  tariff. 
But  there  were  now  indications  that  sections  of  the 
country  favoring  free  trade  would  almost  unani- 
mously support  him.  This  naturally  gave  rise  to 
doubts  in  the  minds  of  his  northern  friends  as  to  what 
his  tariff  policy  would  be  in  case  of  his  election.  In 
Januarj^  1828  the  Senate  of  Indiana  adopted  a reso- 
lution^ ‘^inviting  him  to  state  explicitly  whether  he 
favors  that  construction  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  which  authorizes  Congress  to  appropri- 
ate mone}^  for  the  purpose  of  making  internal  im- 
provements in  the  several  states;  and  whether  he  is  in 
favor  of  such  a system  of  protective  duties  for  the 

1.  Niles*  “Register,”  XXXIIL,  439 

S7 


88 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


l)enefit  of  American  manufactures  as  will,  in  all  cases 
where  the  raw  material  and  the  ability  to  manufacture 
it  exist  in  our  country,  secure  the  patronage  of  our 
own  manufactures  to  the  exclusion  of  those  of  foreign 
countries;  and  whether,  if  elected  president  of  the 
United  States,  he  will  in  his  public  capacity  recom- 
mend, foster,  and  support  the  American  system.” 

This  resolution,  communicated  to  him  b}^  Governor 
Ray,  he  answered  on  February  28.^  He  wrote: 

pray  you  respectfully  to  state  to  the  Senate  of 
Indiana  that  my  opinions  at  fresent  are  precisely 
what  they  were  in  1823  and  ’24,  when  they  were 
communicated  by  letter  to  Dr.  Coleman  of  North 
Carolina,  and  when  I voted  for  the  present  tariff  and 
appropriations  for  internal  improvements.  As  that 
letter  was  written  at  a time  when  the  divisions  of 
sentiment  on  its  subject  were  as  strongly  marked  as 
they  now  are  in  relation  both  to  the  ex'pediency  and 
constitutionality  of  the  system,  it  is  enclosed  herein; 
and  I beg  the  favor  of  your  excellency  to  consider  it 
a part  of  this  communication.  The  occasion  out  of 
which  it  arose  was  embraced  with  a hope  of  prevent- 
ing any  doubt,  misconception,  or  necessity  for  further 
inquiiy  respecting  my  opinion  on  the  subjects  to 
which  you  refer — particularly  in  those  states  which 
you  have  designated  as  cherishing  a policy  at  vari- 
ance with  your  own.  To  preserve  our  invaluable 
Constitution  and  be  prepared  to  repel  the  invasions 
of  a foreign  foe  by  the  practice  of  economy  and  the 
cultivation  within  otii'selves  of  the  means  of  national 
defense  and  independence  should  be,  it  seems  to  me, 
the  leading  objects  of  any  system  which  aspires  to 

1.  Niles,  XXXIV.,  158. 


JACKSON  AND  THE  TARIFF  89 

the  name  of  ‘American/  and  of  every  prudent  ad- 
ministration of  our  government.” 

The  letter  to  Dr,  Coleman^  is  often  referred  to  as 
showing  Jackson’s  opinions  on  the  questions  to  which 
it  relates.  This  is  sufficient  apology  for  quoting 
from  it  at  some  length  here. 

You  ask  my  opinion  on  the  tariff.  I answer  that 
I am  in  favor  of  a judicious  examination  and  revision 
of  it;  and  so  far  as  the  tariff  bill  before  us  embraces 
the  design  of  fostering,  protecting,  and  preserving 
within  ourselves  the  means  of  national  defense  and 
independence,  particularly  in  a state  of  war,  I would 
advocate  and  support  it.  The  experience  of  the  late 
war  ought  to  teach  us  a lesson,  and  one  never  to  be 
forgotten.  If  our  liberty  and  republican  form  of 
government,  procured  for  us  by  our  revolutionary 
fathers,  are  worth  the  blood  and  treasure  at  which 
they  were  obtained,  it  surely  is  our  duty  to  protect 
and  defend  them. 

Heaven  smiled  upon  and  gave  us  libert}"  and  in- 
dependence. That  same  Providence  has  blessed  us 
with  the  means  of  national  independence  and  national 
defense.  If  we  omit  or  refuse  to  use  the  gifts  which 
He  has  extended  to  us,  we  deserve  not  the  continu- 
ation of  His  blessings.  He  has  filled  our  mountains 
and  our  plains  with  minerals — -with  lead,  iron,  and 
copper;  and  has  given  us  a climate  and  soil  for  the 
growing  of  hemp  and  wool.  These  being  the  grand 
materials  of  our  national  defense,  they  ought  to  have 
extended  to  them  adequate  and  fair  protection,  that 
our  own  manufactories  and  laborers  may  be  placed 
on  a fair  competition  with  those  of  Europe,  and  that 
we  may  have  within  our  country  a supply  of  those 
leading  and  important  articles  so  essential  to  war. 

1.  Niles,  XXVI.,  245;  Parton’s  “Life  of  Andrew  Jackson,”  III.,  35. 


90 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


‘^This  tariff-“I  mean  a judicious  one — possesses 
more  fanciful  than  real  danger,  I will  ask,  what  is 
the  real  situation  of  the  agriculturist?  Where  has  the 
American  farmer  a market  for  his  surplus  products? 
Except  for  cotton  he  has  neither  a foreign  nor  a 
home  market.  Does  not  this  clearly  prove,  when 
there  is  no  market  either  at  home  or  abroad,  that 
there  is  too  much  labor  employed  in  agriculture,  and 
that  the  channels  for  labor  should  be  multiplied? 
Common  sense  at  once  points  out  the  remedy.  Draw 
from  agriculture  this  superabundant  labor;  employ  it 
in  mechanism  and  manufactures,  tbereb}^  creating  a 
home  market  for  your  breadstuff's,  and  distributing 
labor  to  the  most  profitable  account,  and  benefits  to 
the  country  will  result.  Take  from  agriculture  in  the 
United  States  600,000  men,  women,  and  children,  and 
you  will  at  once  give  a home  market  for  more  bread- 
stuffs  than  all  Europe  now  furnishes  us.  In  short,  we 
have  been  too  long  subject  to  the  policy  of  British 
merchants.  It  is  time  we  should  become  a little  more 
Americanized \ and  instead  of  feeding  the  paupers  and 
laborers  of  England,  feed  our  own;  or  else  in  a short 
time,  by  continuing  our  present  policy,  we  shall  be 
rendered  paupers  ourselves. 

‘Ut  is  therefore  my  opinion  that  a careful  and  ju- 
dicious tariff  is  much  wanted  to  pay  our  national 
debt,  and  afford  us  the  means  of  that  defense  within 
ourselves  on  which  the  safety  and  the  liberty  of  our 
country  depend;  and  last,  though  not  least,  give  a 
proper  distribution  to  our  labor,  which  must  prove 
beneficial  to  the  happiness,  independence,  and  w^ealrh 
of  the  community.” 

The  remarks  of  two  of  Jackson’s  biographers  re- 
garding this  letter  are  interesting  because  of  their 
wide  divergence.  Mr,  Parton  saysd  ‘‘Did  Henry 

1.  Loc.  cit. 


JACKSON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


91 


Clay  ever  deliver  a speech,  or  Horace  Greeley  write 
an  editorial  article,  more  completely  pervaded  with 
the  spirit  of  the  protective  policy  than  this  letter  of 
Andrew  Jackson?  The  General  really  exhausts  the 
subject.  Not  an  argument  escapes  him.”  Mr.  Sum- 
ner thus  expresses  another  view: ^ The  Coleman 
letter  was  a model  letter  of  its  kind.  It  said  nothing 
clear  or  to  the  point  on  the  matter  in  question.  It 
used  some  ambiguous  phrases  which  the  reader  could 
interpret  to  suit  his  own  taste.  It  muddled  the  con- 
troversy by  contradictory  suggestions,  bearing  upon 
it  from  a greater  or  less  distance,  and  from  all  points 
of  view,  and  it  failed  not  to  introduce  enough  glitter- 
ing platitudes  to  make  the  whole  pass  current.” 

But  the  people  of  the  eastern,  middle,  and  western 
states  interpreted  the  letter  as  coinciding  with  their 
views;  and  it  is  probable  that  Jackson  wmuld  have 
again  failed  of  an  election  but  for  his  declarations  on 
the  subject. 

After  the  passage  of  the  tariff  act  of  1824  the  Eng« 
lish  flooded  the  country  with  their  manufactures  and 
sold  them  at  a large  profit.  This  success  of  the  British 
and  the  anticipated  protection  of  the  tariff  act  encour- 
aged many  Americans  to  invest  large  sums  in  manu- 
facturing. But  the  British  imports  soon  far  exceeded 
he  demand  and  had  to  be  disposed  of  at  forced  sales 
at  a very  great  sacrifice  and  to  the  serious  embarrass- 

1.  “Andrew  Jackson,”  in  “American  Statesmen”  series,  p.  77. 


92 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


ment  of  home  manufactures.  The  latter  had  no  pro- 
tection against  such  a state  of  affairs,  and  many 
memorials  and  petitions  were  addressed  to  Congress. 
The  duties  were  lacking  in  both  their  nature  and  the 
manner  of  determining.  Being  ad  valo7'em^  or  levied 
on  the  value  of  the  article,  imported  goods  were  in- 
voiced far  below  their  real  value  in  England.  The 
revenue  was  thus  defrauded  and  protection  to  Ameri- 
can manufactures  defeated.  After  supplying  other 
markets,  England  threw  her  surplus  on  this  country 
and  disposed  of  it  at  such  prices  as  could  be  obtained. 
The  loss  thus  incurred  was  more  than  compensated 
by  the  depression  of  American  manufactures,  a mat- 
ter of  great  importance  to  England. 

the  act  of  1824  the  duty  on  woolen  goods  was 
raised  eight  per  cent,  and  wool  fifteen  per  cent.  No 
wool  was  exported  to  Europe,  but  more  than  one- 
third  that  manufactured  here  was  imported  from 
European  countries  subject  to  a duty  of  thirt}^  per 
cent.  The  home  manufacturer  at  the  same  time 
was  protected  b}^  a duty  of  thirty-three  and  one-third 
per  cent  ad  valorem.  As  a result  half  the  machinery 
in  many  New  England  establishments  was  idle,  and 
some  that  had  just  been  completed  could  not  be  put 
into  operation  until  circumstances  became  more- 
favorable. 

On  January  10,  1827,  Mr.  Mallaiy  of  Vermont, 
chairman  of  the  House  committee  on  manufactures, 


JACKSON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


93 


reported  a bill  “for  the  alteration  of  the  acts  impos- 
ing duties  on  imports. The  present  rate  of  duty 
(thirty-three  and  one-third  per  cent  ad  valorem)  on 
woolen  manufactures  was  left  unchanged ; but  the 
duties  were  to  be  estimated  on  what  was  called  the 
“minimum”  principle.  “All  manufactures  of  wool  or 
of  which  wool  is  a component  part  (except  worsteds 
and  blankets),  whose  actual  value  at  the  place 
imported  shall  not  exceed  40  cents  per  squai 
shall  be  deemed  and  taken  to  have  cost  40  cents  the 
square  yard,  and  be  charged  with  the  present  duty 
accordingly.”  Similarly,  those  exceeding  40  cents, 
but  not  $2.50,  in  value,  were  to  be  charged  on  the 
latter;  and  those  above  $2.50  were  to  be  charged  as 
if  costing  $4.00.  All  unmanufactured  wool,  on  which 
the  duty  was  thirty  per  cent,  was  to  be  charged 
thirtj'-five  per  cent  after  June  i,  1828,  and  foi’ty  per 
cent  after  June  i,  1829.  All  unmanufactured  wool 
exceeding  in  value  ten  cents  per  pound,  but  not  ex- 
ceeding forty,  was  to  be  deemed  to  have  cost  forty 
cents,  and  to  be  subject  to  these  rates  of  duty.  The 
duty  on  wool  of  less  value  than  ten  cents  (fifteen  per 
cent  by  the  act  of  1824)  was  left  unchanged. 

The  discussion  of  the  bill  began  on  January  17  with 
a strong  speech  from  Mr.  Mallary  in  its  favor.  The 
House  was  divided  on  the  measure,  but  the  division 
was  geographical  rather  than  partisan.  Many  of 

1.  Niles,  XXXI.,  319. 


whence^ii^ 
e yard, 


94 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


Jackson’s  northern  friends  were,  as  has  been  seen, 
decided  protectionists;  but  a few  of  them,  together 
with  some  friends  of  Adams’  administration,  opposed 
certain  features  of  the  bill.  The  scale  of  minimums 
was  thought  not  to  be  sufficiently  graduated.  The 
strides  were  too  gigantic,  it  was  said,  especiall})^  that 
from  40  cents-to  $2.50.  An  amendment  was  soon 
offered  proposing  to  insert  the  minimum  of  $1.50 
there,  which  was  adopted  after  considerable  debate 
by  a vote  of  82  to  30.  The  debate  on  the  bill  proper 
was  too  lengthy  to  follow  through  here.  So  far  as 
protection  was  concerned,  the  arguments  did  not 
essentially  differ  from  those  used  in  tariff  debates  be- 
fore and  after. 

The  bill  passed  the  House  on  February  10  by  a 
vote  of  106  to  95,  and  was  sent  to  the  Senate  on  the 
1 2th.  There,  for  want  of  time  to  act  on  it  at  that  ses- 
sion, it  was  on  the  28th  laid  on  the  table  by  the  cast- 
ing vote  of  the  vice-president,  Calhoun.  Van  Buren, 
by  a manoeuvre,  ‘‘dodged,”  thus  making  the  vote  a 
tie  and  forcing  Calhoun  to  decide  the  matter.  And 
the  latter  suffered  in  consequence  in  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania. 

Manufacturers  were  disappointed  over  the  defeat 
of  this  bill — the  woolens  bill  as  it  was  popularly 
called — and  earl}^  resolved  to  renew  their  applications 
to  Congress  for  relief.  The  initiative  was  taken  by 
the  Pennsylvania  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Man- 


JACKSON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


95 


ufactures  and  the  Mechanic  Arts  at  a meeting  held 
May  14,  1827.  This  body,  because  of  ^‘the  depressed 
state  of  the  woolen  manufacture  and  of  the  market 
for  wool,  together  with  the  injurious  effect  the  de- 
pression of  those  two  important  branches  must  have 
on  other  departments  of  industry  and  on  the  general 
welfare,”  called  on  farmers,  manufacturers,  and 
friends  of  both  these  branches  of  industry  to  hold 
conventions  in  their  respective  states  as  early  as  con- 
venient in  June.  These  conventions  were  to  appoint 
at  least  five  delegates  to  a general  convention  at  Har- 
risburg, Pennsylvania,  on  July  30,  ^^to  deliberate 
what  measures  are  proper  to  be  taken  in  the  present 
posture  of  affairs.”  A committee  of  twenty-seven 
was  appointed  to  frame  an  address  to  the  people  of 
the  United  States.  This  address^  discussed  the  policy 
of  protection  and  set  forth  the  causes  of  the  depression 
in  manufactures  and  the  effect  of  this  depression  upon 
the  other  great  interests  of  the  country. 

Local  and  state  conventions  were  held  in  accord- 
ance with  this  call,  and  delegates  appointed  to  the 
national  convention  at  Harrisburg.  The  proceedings 
of  these  conventions  show  great  unanimity  at  the 
north  at  that  time  on  the  subject  of  the  tariff — -greater 
than  at  a later  period.  The  views  of  that  section, 
irrespective  of  political  parties,  are  well  represented 
by  the  following  resolutions  taken  from  a long  series 

1.  Niles,  XXXII. , 238. 


96 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


adopted  by  the  New  York  state  convention  at  Albany 
on  July  lo:^ 

Resolved^  That  agriculture,  manufactures,  and 
commerce  are  social  pursuits,  and  flourish  best  in  the 
society  of  each  other;  and  that  equal  protection  by 
the  government  is  due  to  each. 

Resolved^  That  as  wool  and  the  woolen  trade  were 
the  principal  foundations  of  the  prosperity,  first  of 
the  Netherlands  and  afterwards  of  England,  so  the 
people  of  the  northern  and  middle  states  ought  to 
look  to  the  same  article  as  an  unfailing  source  of 
wealth  to  their  agricultural,  manufacturing,  and 
commercial  interests. 

Resolved^  That  inasmuch  as  the  staple  agricultural 
products  of  the  south,  to-wit,  cotton,  tobacco,  and 
rice,  are  admitted  into  the  ports  of  Europe  without 
competition  in  their  production  in  that  part  of  the 
world;  and  while  both  competition  and  prohibitory 
laws  operate  to  exclude  from  European  markets  the 
breadstuffs,  provisions,  and  manufactures  of  the 
northern,  middle,  and  western  states,  we  deem  it 
unkind  in  our  southern  brethren  to  oppose  the  passage 
of  laws  which  are  calculated  to  create  a home  market 
for  our  agricultural  productions  and  to  promote  our 
national  wealth  and  prosperity. 

Resolved^  That  to  encourage  the  growth  and  man- 
ufacture of  wool  would  afford  a great  relief  to  the 
depressed  condition  of  our  agricultural  interests  by 
attracting  a much  larger  portion  of  our  capital  and 
labor  to  the  growth  and  manufacture  of  that  article, 
and  by  creating  a home  market  for  the  surplus  pro- 
ductions of  the  soil. 

There  were  in  the  Harrisburg  convention  ninety- 
five  delegates  from  the  following  states:  New 

1.  See  loc.  cit.,  p.  363. 


JACKSON  AND  THE  TARIFF 


97 


Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island, 
Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Ohio. 
A committee  was  appointed  to  prepare  a memorial 
to  Congress,  another  to  prepare  an  address  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  and  one  for  each  of  the 
leading  branches  of  manufacture.  Niles’  ‘^Regis- 
ter” gives  a good  report  of  the  proceedings.^  The  re- 
ports of  the  various  committees  form  a large  volume 
containing  a great  variety  of  interesting  and  useful 
facts.  In  the  memorial  to  Congress  was  presented  a 
project  of  a tariff  on  raw  wool  and  the  different  kinds 
and  qualities  of  woolen  manufactures.  An  increase 
of  duties  on  other  manufactured  articles  was  also 
recommended. 

1.  XXXII.,  388  foil. 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  TARIFF  AND  NULFIFFCATION. 

On  December  31,  1827,  Congress  again  undertook 
the  revision  of  the  tariff.  After  an  all-day  debate  a 
resolution  was  adopted  empowering  the  committee 
on  manufactures  to  call  before  it  individuals  and  to 
cause  papers  to  be  prepared  to  enable  it  to  ascertain 
and  report  such  facts  as  would  be  useful  to  the  House. 
The  committee  made  its  report  just  one  month  later, 
and  with  it  presenting  ‘^A  bill  in  alteration  of  the 
several  acts  imposing  duties  on  imports.”  The  de- 
bate on  this  bill  began  March  3,  and  ended  April  22. 

From  the  evidence  taken,  the  committee  felt  war- 
ranted in  drawing  these  conclusions  relative  to 
woolen  manufactures:  First,  that  this  business  was 
at  that  time  laboring  under  severe  depression. 
Second,  that  this  depression  was  owing  in  great  de- 
gree to  excessive  and  irregular  importations,  which 
caused  uncertain  and  fluctuating  prices.  Third,  that 
the  difference  in  price  between  the  same  grades  of 
wool  in  this  country  and  in  England  was  about  fifty 
per  cent  in  favor  of  the  latter.  Fourth,  that  the  cost 
of  raw  wool  here  was  about  half  that  of  the  fabric 

9S 


THE  TARIFF  AND  NULLIFICATION 


99 


made  from  it.  Fifth,  that  with  wool  and  foreign 
dyeing  materials  costing  the  same  in  both  countries, 
woolen  cloth  could  be  made  as  cheaply  here  as  in 
England.  Sixth,  that  the  present  duty  on  woolen 
goods  was  not  sufficientl}^  protective,  and  that  no 
reasonable  duty  would  be  so  unless  it  were  specific 
instead  of  ad  valorem.^ 

The  bill  proposed  duties  on  iron  and  steel  manu- 
factures varying  from  one  to  ten  cents  per  pound. 
On  unmanufactured  wool  the  duty  was  fixed  at  seven 
cents  per  pound,  with  an  additional  duty  of  forty  per 
cent  ad  valor  em\  the  latter  to  increase  after  one  j^ear 
at  the  rate  of  five  per  cent  per  annum  until  it  amounted 
to  fifty  per  cent.  On  manufactures  of  wool  costing 
not  over  fifty  cents  per  yard  a duty  of  sixteen  cents 
per  yard  was  levied;  not  exceeding  one  dollar  per 
yard,  forty  cents;  not  exceeding  $2.50,  one  dollar; 
those  costing  from  $2.50  to  $4.00  at  the  place  whence 
imported  were  to  be  deemed  to  have  cost  the  latter, 
and  on  them  a duty  of  forty  per  cent  ad  valorem  was 
levied ; on  those  exceeding  $4.00,  forty-five  per  cent ; 
on  woolen  blankets,  hosiery,  mitts,  gloves,  and  bind- 
ings, thirty-five  per  cent.  On  unmanufactured  hemp 
and  flax  the  duty  was  fixed  as  forty-five  dollars  per 
ton,  to  be  increased  after  one  year  at  the  rate  of  five 
dollars  per  ton  annually  until  it  amounted  to  sixty  dol- 
lars. On  molasses  the  rate  was  made  ten  cents  per 

1 For  the  report  in  full,  see  Niles,  XXXIII.,  393;  for  the  bill,  see  p.  383. 


lOO 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


gallon,  and  that  on  imported  distilled  spirits  was  in- 
creased ten  cents  per  gallon.  The  rest  of  the  bill 
was  mostly  devoted  to  a general  modification  of  the 
tariff. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  note  here,  parenthetically, 
as  indicating  the  extent  to  which  molasses  was  at 
that  time  imported  into  New  England,  that  on  March 
25  and  26,  1828,  there  were  landed  at  the  single  port 
of  Portland,  Maine,  3,148  hogsheads,  paying  a duty 
under  the  then  tariff  of  $15,743. 

The  usual  variety  of  topics  was  embraced  in  the 
debate.  The  former  arguments  on  the  constitution- 
ality and  the  general  effects  of  the  protective  system 
were  mostly  reproduced,  and  opinions  diametrically 
opposed  to  each  other  were  expressed  as  to  the  oper- 
ation of  the  proposed  measure.  Mr.  Anderson  of 
Maine  said  on  March  5: 

‘^As  to  hemp,  it  appears  to  me  it  is  abundantly 
protected.  Just  look  at  the  prices  of  Russian  and 
American  hemp  in  our  market,  and  it  must  convince 
any  man  that  this  article  needs  no  further  protection. 
Russian  hemp  now  commands  $275  per  ton,  while 
American  is  quoted  at  $125.  If  $150  per  ton  is  not 
sufficient  protection,  what  in  the  name  of  Heaven  will 
be?  The  great  complaint  has  been  that  foreign  man- 
ufactures and  articles  of  foreign  growth  were  under- 
selling us  in  our  own  market,  but  this  does  not  apply 
to  hemp.  And  if  $150  per  ton,  or  even  $100  per  ton 
bounty  has  not  induced  the  grower  of  this  article  to 
prepare  it  properl37  for  market,  can  we  expect  that  ten 
or  twenty  dollars  more  will?” 


THE  TARIFF  AND  NULLIFICATION 


lOI 


Mr.  Wright,  a member  of  the  committee  which 
framed  the  bill,  said  in  a speech  in  support  of  it: 

^^It  will  be  found  difficult, if  not  impossible, to  draw 
a bill  intended  to  furnish  general  protection  to  the 
domestic  industry  of  this  country,  which  will  not,  in 
some  of  its  provisions,  operate  injuriously  upon  some 
of  the  interests  concerned,  and  in  some  sections  of 
the  country.  One  leading  principle,  however,  which 
operated  upon  my  mind  in  the  formation  of  the  pres- 
ent bill,  is  that  it  is  not  and  cannot  be  the  policy  of 
this  government  or  of  this  Congress  to  turn  the  man- 
ufacturing capital  of  this  country  to  the  manufacture 
of  a raw  material  of  a foreign  country  while  we  do 
or  can  produce  the  same  material  in  sufficient  quanti- 
ties ourselves. 

^‘This  I consider  to  be  a rule  of  universal  appli- 
cation, and  to  extend  itself  not  only  to  the  same  raw 
material,  but  to  any  which  shall  be  equally  valuable 
and  may  be  substituted  for  the  raw  material  imported ; 
and  I cannot  suppose  that  in  the  legislation  for  the 
protection  of  the  industry  of  the  country  this  rule 
should  be  lost  sight  of.  If  the  time  should  arrive 
when  there  should  be  a surplus  of  labor  in  this  country, 
and  when  the  cultivation  of  our  soil  and  the  manufac- 
ture of  its  productions  should  not  require  the  emplo}^- 
ment  of  all  the  labor  of  the  country,  then  a different 
rule  might  be  applicable;  then  it  might  be  sound 
policy  to  encourage  the  importation  of  foreign  mate- 
rials that  their  manufacture  might  employ  any  surplus 
of  domestic  labor.” 

Finally, after  a change  in  some  of  its  provisions,^  the 
bill  was  ordered  to  a third  reading  on  April  15  by  a 
vote  of  109  to  91.  The  next  day  Mr.  Randolph  op- 

1.  For  the  amended  bill  see  Benton’s  “Abridgment,”  X.,  93;  Niles,  loc.  cit. 
p,134. 


102 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


posed  it  at  length  on  the  question  of  its  passage,  and 
concluded  by  moving  an  indefinite  postponement. 
This  motion  gave  rise  to  another  debate  in  which  the 
merits  of  the  bill  and  the  general  system  of  protection 
were  again  discussed.  With  a few  exceptions,  how- 
ever, only  the  opponents  of  the  protective  policy  en- 


gaged  in  it.  The  bill  passed 

the  House  on 

April  22 

by  the  following  vote: 

Yeas. 

Nays. 

Absent. 

Maine 

— 

7 

— 

New  Hampshire 

— 

4 

2 

Massachusetts 

2 

1 1 

— 

Rhode  Island 

I 

I 

— 

Connecticut 

4 

2 

— 

Vermont 

5 

— 

— 

New  York 

27 

6 

I 

New  Jersey 

5 

— 

I 

Pennsylvania 

23 

— 

3 

Delaware 

I 

— 

— 

Maryland 

I 

5 

3 

V^irginia 

3 

15 

4 

North  Carolina 

— 

13 

— 

South  Carolina 

.. 

8 

I 

Georgia 

— 

7 

— 

Kentucky 

12 

— 

Tennessee 

— 

9 

— 

Ohio 

13 

I 

Louisiana 

— 

3 

— 

Indiana 

3 

— 

— 

Mississippi 

— 

I 

— 

Illinois^ 

I 

— 

— 

Alabama 

— 

3 

— 

Missouri 

— 

I 

— 

— 

— 

— 

Total 

lOI 

96 

16 

THE  TARIFF  AND  NULLIFICATION 


103 


The  spirit  of  some  of  the  opposing  members  was 
strikingly  exhibited  on  taking  the  question  on  the 
title  of  the  bill,  which  was  ‘^An  act  in  alteration  of 
the  several  acts  imposing  duties  on  imports.’-  Mr. 
Wilde  of  Georgia  moved  to  amend  it  by  adding  the 
words,  ‘‘and  for  the  encouragement  of  domestic 
manufactures.”  Mr.  Randolph  opposed  the  motion, 
insisting  that  domestic  manufactures  were  those  car- 
ried on  in  the  families  of  farmers  in  the  making  of 
what  used  to  be  called  Virginia  cloth.  If  the  gentle- 
man from  Georgia  wished  to  amend  the  bill,  he  ought 
to  call  it  a bill  for  the  encouragement  of  one  part  of 
our  domestic  manufactures  at  the  cost  of  another;  or 
a bill  to  rob  and  plunder  nearly  one-half  of  the  Union 
to  fill  the  pockets  of  the  other  half.  Let  the  friends  of 
the  bill  christen  their  own  child;  he  would  not  stand 
godfather  to  it.  It  referred  to  manufactures  of  no 
sort  or  kind  whatever  but  the  manufacture  of  a presi- 
dent of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Wilde  made  a brief 
reply,  agreeing  with  Mr.  Randolph’s  opinion  of  the 
bill,  but  thought  the  manufactures  in  the  family  should 
be  called  household  manufactures.  He  closed  by 
withdrawing  his  motion. 

Mr.  Drayton  of  South  Carolina  moved  to  amend 
the  title  by  striking  out  all  after  “An  act,”  and  in- 
serting “to  increase  the  duties  upon  certain  imports 
for  the  purpose  of  increasing  the  profits  of  certain 
manufacturers.”  His  main  reason  for  so  desiring  to 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


104 

amend  the  title  was  that  a decision  might  be  had  on 
its  constitutionality  by  an  appeal  to  the  supreme 
court  on  some  case  that  might  arise  under  its  opera- 
tion. This  could  not  be  done  if  the  title  remained  as 
it  now  stood.  A declaration  by  the  power  which 
enacted  the  law  that  it  was  intended  for  the  protec- 
tion of  certain  manufactures  would  bring  up  the  con- 
stitutional question  whether  Congress  could  increase 
the  duties  on  imports  for  such  a purpose.  Mr.  Hodges 
of  Massachusetts  moved  to  amend  this  amendment 
by  adding,  ‘^and  to  transfer  the  capital  and  industry 
of  the  New  England  states  to  other  states  in  the 
Union.’*  The  previous  question  on  the  title  was  now 
moved  and  the  House  sustained  the  call.  The  pre- 
vious question  was  put  and  carried;  and  the  main 
question  having  been  put  as  follows:  ‘‘Shall  this 
be  the  title  of  the  bill?'’  it  was  carried  without  a di- 
vision. 

The  bill  was  at  once  sent  to  the  Senate,  where  it 
was  debated  for  three  weeks.  Mr.  Webster  took 
the  affirmative,  declaring  New  England  was  now  for 
protection.  The  southern  members  claimed  the  tariff 
was  no  advantage  to  them — that  their  wealth  was 
diminishing  rather  than  advancing.  These  com- 
plaints were  probably  due  to  a contrast  between  the 
region  blighted  b}^  slave  labor  and  that  blessed  with 
free  industry.  “We  cannot  manufacture,”  said 
Senator  Hayne  of  South  Carolina  in  1832,  “except 


THE  TARIFF  AND  NULLIFICATION  IO5 

as  to  a few  coarse  articles;  slave  labor  is  utterly  in- 
capable of  being  applied  successfully  to  such  an  ob- 
ject. Slaves  are  too  improvident;  too  incapable  of 
that  minute,  constant,  delicate  attention  and  that  per- 
severing industry  which  is  essential  to  the  success 
of  manufacturing  establishments.” 

On  May  13,  after  receiving  thirteen  amendments, 
the  bill  passed  the  Senate  by  a vote  of  26  to  21,  and 
was  returned  to  the  House.  There  the  amendments 
were  agreed  to  two  days  later,  and  the  president 
(John  Quincy  Adams)  signed  the  bill  on  the  19th. ^ 
The  act  went  into  effect  on  the  first  day  of  the  follow- 
ing September.  All  the  southern  senators,  with  four 
exceptions  (two  from  Kentucky  and  one  each  from 
Tennessee  and  Louisiana),  voted  against  the  bill. 
Those  from  the  middle  and  western  states  all  voted 
for  it.  From  New  England,  six  voted  for  and  five 
against.  This  was  the  most  elaborate  tariff  act  w'hich 
had  up  to  that  time  been  enacted.  It  raised  the  aver- 
age duties  on  total  importations  to  57.33  per  cent, 
and  to  61.69  dutiable  articles. 

The  action  of  Congress  in  1827  and  1828  on  the 
subject  of  protection  caused  great  excitement  in  the 
south,  particularly  in  South  Carolina.  Public  meet- 
ings, legislatures,  and  the  press  served  as  outlets 
through  which  the  popular  indignation  poured  in 
terms  of  extreme  violence.  Some  think  the  south, 

1.  For  the  bill  as  finally  passed,  see  Niles,  XXXIV.,  203. 


io6 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


by  the  stand  taken  on  the  subject,  wished  to  frighten 
the  north  from  the  position  it  had  assumed;  while 
others  think  her  action  was  induced  by  the  belief  that 
the  protective  policy  really  inflicted  upon  her  the  in- 
jury of  which  she  so  grievously  complained. 

The  citizens  of  Columbia  and  Richland, SouthCaro- 
lina,  addressed  a memorial  to  the  state  legislature 
calling  upon  that  body  to  “save  them,  if  possible, 
from  the  conjoined  grasp  of  usurpation  and  poverty.” 
They  said:  “We  exist  as  a member  of  the  Union 
merely  as  an  object  of  taxation.  The  northern  and 
middle  states  are  to  be  enriched  by  the  plunder  of  the 
south.  The  citizens  of  South  Carolina  will  be  con- 
demned to  work  as  tributaries  to  the  northern  and 
middle  sections  of  the  Union.  It  is  so  now;  and  it 
is  triumphantly  determined  to  extend  the  system  in- 
definitely.” In  a memorial  to  Congress  they  declared 
that  “ Cojigress  possesses  no  power  under  the  constitu- 
tion to  enact  a system  of  protection;  their  honest 
earnings  are  legislated  out  of  their  pockets;”  and 
that  the  burdens  imposed  upon  them  are  “too  heavy 
to  be  borne  in  silence  any  longer.” 

The  citizens  of  the  Colleton  district  held  a meeting 
at' Walterborough  on  June  12  to  consider  what  meas- 
ures should  be  adopted  relative  to  the  tariff  bill  re- 
cently passed.  In  an  address  to  the  people  of  the  state 
they  said 

1.  Niles,  XXXIV.,  288. 


THE  TARIFF  AND  NULLIFICATION  I07 

‘‘Your  remonstrances  and  your  irnplorations  have 
been  in  vain;  and  a tariff  bill  has  passed,  not,  in- 
deed, such  as  you  apprehended,  but  tenfold  worse  in 
all  its  oppressive  features.  ...  The  question 
whether  they  (Congress)  can  constitutionally  do  this 
or  not  excites  neither  solicitude  nor  alarm,  and  ap- 
pears unworthy  of  inquiry.  Power  seems  to  be  rights 
and  our  representatives  sit  in  desponding  silence  un- 
der the  conviction  that  their  voices  could  as  easily 
move  the  Capitol  from  its  basis  as  shake  the  purpose 
of  interested  cupidity.  They  protest,  indeed,  before 
they  receive  the  blow. 

“ What  course  is  left  to  us  to  pursue  ? Our  northern 
and  western  brethren  are  not,  cannot  be  ignorant  of 
the  operation  of  the  system  they  advocate  or  of  the 
powers  they  claim  for  the  general  government.  They 
full  well  know,  because  like  us  they  must  feel^  that  it 
lifts  them  to  prosperity  while  it  sinks  us  into  ruin. 
We  have  done  by  words  all  that  words  can  do.  To 
talk  more  must  be  a dastard’s  refuge. 

“What  course  is  left  us  to  pursue?  If  we  have  the 
common  pride  of  men  or  the  determination  of  free- 
men,we  must  resist  the  impositions  of  this  tariff.  We 
stand  committed.  To  be  stationary  is  impossible. 
We  must  either  retrograde  in  dishonor  and  shame,  . 

or  we  must‘by  opposing,  end  them.’  To  the 
very  last  vote  in  Congress  we  have  kept  this  dreaded 
alternative  from  our  minds,  still  clinging  to  the  vain 
hope  that  some  kindred  feeling,  some  sense  of  con- 
stitutional justice,  some  spirit  of  forbearance  and 
compromise,  such  as  influenced  our  fathers  when 
acting  together,  and  the  framers  of  this  constitution, 
would  rescue  us  from  this  bitter  emergency.  But  it 
has  come,  and  we  ma}^  not  shrink  in  meeting  it. 

“In  advising  an  attitude  of  open  resistance  to  the 
laws  of  the  Union  we  deem  it  due  to  the  occasion. 


I08  THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 

and  that  we  may  not  be  misunderstood,  distinctly  but 
briefly  to  state  without  argument  our  constitutional 
faith.  For  it  is  not  enough  that  imposts  laid  for  the 
protection  of  domestic  manufactures  are  oppressive 
and  transfer  in  their  operation  millions  of  our  prop- 
erty to  northern  capitalists.  If  we  have  given  our 
bond,  let  them  take  our  blood.  Those  who  resist  these 
imposts  must  deem  them  unconstitutional,  and  the 
principle  is  abandoned  by  the  payment  of  one  cent 
as  much  as  by  ten  millions. 

ist.  We  believe, then, that  the  state  of  South  Car- 
olina in  entering  into  the  confederacy  of  the  United 
States  was  a sovereign  state  or  nation,  and  retained 
all  the  powers  not  expressly  granted  to  the  confeder- 
acy, or  such  as  were  ‘necessary  and  proper’  to  carry 
on  the  powers  expressly  granted  into  operation. 

‘‘2nd.  We  believe,  as  a corollary  to  this  propo- 
sition, that  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  is 
one  of  express,  limited,  and  specific  powers,  and  has 
no  powers  but  those  contained  upon  the  face  of  the 
charter. 

“3rd.  We  believe  that  the  power  to  encourage 
domestic  manufactures,  by  which  one  portion  of  the 
community  is  made  tributary  to  another,  is  neither 
among  the  express  powers  granted  by  this  constitu- 
tion, nor  is  it  ‘necessary  and  proper’  to  carry  any 
other  expressly  granted  power  into  operation. 

“4th,  We  believe  that  because  commerce  (with  all 
the  other  great  branches  of  industry)  is  incidentally 
affected  and  curtailed  by  laying  imposts  with  a view 
to  encourage  domestic  manufactures,  that  domestic 
manufactures  cannot  be  encouraged  by  imposts  laid 
under  the  general  power  granted  of  regulating  com- 
merce. 

“5th.  We  believe  that  because,  b}^  the  terms  of 
the  constitution,  Congress  has  power  to  lay  imposts 


THE  TARIFF  AND  NULLIFICATION  IO9 

for  revenue,  it  has  not  power  therefore  to  lay  imposts 
to  encourage  and  foster  manufactures  without  regard 
to  revenue. 

‘‘6th.  We  believe  that  by  the  second  clause  of  the 
tenth  section  of  the  first  article  of  the  constitution  the 
power  of  fostering  their  manufactures  by  duties  laid 
is  expressly  given  to  the  several  states,  and  conse- 
quently is  as  express!}’  denied  to  the  general  govern- 
inent.’- 

An  address  to  the  governor  was  also  adopted,  call- 
ing upon  him  to  immediately  convene  the  state  legis- 
lature. 

Many  people  favored  retaliatory  measures.  An 
article  in  the  Columbia  (S.  C. ) Telescofe  suggested 
that  the  legislatures  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina, 
South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Alabama  prohibit  the 
introduction  of  horses,  mules,  hogs,  beef,  cattle, 
bacon,  and  bagging  from  Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, 
and  Indiana;  whisky,  beer,  flour,  and  cheese  from 
New  York  and  Pennsylvania;  and  also  to  lay  on 
these  last  named  states  “a  municipal  tax,  amounting 
to  prohibition, on  all  stock  in  trade  consisting  of  goods, 
wares,  or  merchandise,  the  produce  of  those  states.’^ 

Another  paper  said : “The  object  of  every  agricul- 
turist should  be  in  the  first  place  to  devise  means  for 
the  destruction  of  the  manufacturing  mania.”  The 
Southron^  of  Milledgeville,  Ga.,  called  the  tariff  “an 
accursed  chain  to  bind  us  as  victims  to  the  idol  mam- 
mon;” and  added:  “We  must  now  turn  ourselves  to 
other  means  and  other  defences,  constitutional  in- 


I lO 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


deed,  but  at  the  same  time  with  spirit  pushing  resist 
ance  to  the  very  bounds  of  the  constitution.  Let 
there  be  a wall  raised  between  them  and  us;  and  let 
us  say  unto  them  as  Abraham  said  unto  Lot:  ‘Let 
there  be  no  strife,  I pray  thee,  between  thee  and 
me,  and  between  thy  herdsmen  and  my  herdsmen  ; 
for  we  are  brethren.  Is  not  the  whole  world  before 
thee?  Separate  thyself,  I pray  thee,  from  me;  if 
thou  wilt  take  the  left  hand,  then  I will  go  to  the 
right;  or  if  thou  depart  to  the  right  hand,  then  I will 
go  to  the  left.’ 

^^Let  us  lay  upon  ourselves  the  injunction  which 
God,  through  Moses,  laid  on  the  Israelites:  ‘And 
thou  shalt  gather  all  the  spoil  of  it  into  the  midst  of 
the  street  thereof,  and  shalt  burn  with  fire  the  city 
and  all  the  spoil  thereof;  and  there  shall  cleave 
naught  of  the  cursed  thing  to  thine  hand.’ 

^M^et  us  govern  ourselves  by  the  advice  of  the  apos- 
tle: ‘Touch  not,  taste  not,  handle  not  the  unclean 
thing  which  is  theirs.’  And  for  this  purpose  we 
would  recommend  that  a congress  assemble Jrom  all 
the  states  offosed  to  the  protective  tariff  in  order  to 
advise  and  recommend  to  the  different  legislatures  and 
the  people  such  measures,  as  may  seem  best  calcu- 
lated to  protect  them  from  the  operations  of  the  tariff 
bill,  and  prevent  the  introduction  and  use  of  tariffed 
articles  in  their  respective  states.’’ 

Such  was  the  state  of  public  opinion  at  the  south 


THE  TARIFF  AND  NULLIFICATION 


I I I 


at  this  time  as  contrasted  with  that  at  the  north  as 
represented  by  the  New  York  resolutions/ 

The  second  session  of  the  twentieth  Congress  met 
December  i,  1828.  Georgia  and  South  Carolina, 
through  their  state  legislatures,  soon  after  presented 
protests  against  the  tariff  of  the  preceding  session. 
The  protest  from  Georgia^  pronounced  that  act  ‘‘de- 
ceptive in  its  title,  fraudulent  in  its  pretexts,  oppres- 
sive in  its  exactions, partial  and  unjust  in  its  operations, 
unconstitutional  in  its  well-known  objects,  ruinous  to 
commerce  and  agriculture — to  secure  a hateful  mo- 
nopoly to  a combination  of  importunate  manufact- 
urers/’ The  protest  continued  in  language  similar  to 
that  employed  in  her  correspondence  with  the  general 
government  during  the  controversy  concerning  the 
removal  of  the  Indians  in  1825,  and  with  a hint  of 
nullification,  as  the  concluding  paragraph  shows: 

“ Demanding  the  repeal  of  an  act  which  has  already 
disturbed  the  Union,  endangered  the  public  tran- 
quility, weakened  the  confidence  of  whole  states  in 
the  federal  government  and  diminished  the  affection 
of  large  masses  of  the  people  to  the  Union  itself,  and 
the  abandonment  of  the  degrading  system  which  con- 
siders the  people  as  incapable  of  wisely  directing  their 
own  enterprises;  which  sets  up  the  servants  of  the 
people  in  Congress  as  exclusive  judges  of  what  pur- 
suits are  most  advantageous  and  suitable  for  those  by 
whom  they  were  elected  ; the  state  of  Georgia  expects 
that,  in  perpetual  testimony  thereof,this  deliberate  and 

1.  See  page  96, 

2.  See  Benton's  “Abridgment,”  X.,  221;  Niles,  XXXV.,  291. 


I 12 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


solemn  expression  of  her  opinions  will  be  carefully 
preserved  among  the  archives  of  the  Senate;  and  in 
justification  of  her  character  to  the  present  generation 
and  posterity  if,  unfortunately,  Congress  disregard- 
ing this  protest  and  continuing  to  pervert  powers 
granted  for  clearly  defined  and  well  understood  pur- 
poses to  effectuate  objects  never  intended  by  the 
great  parties  by  whom  the  constitution  was  framed  to 
be  entrusted  to  the  controlling  guardianship  of  the 
federal  government,  should  render  necessary  meas- 
ures of  a decided  character  for  the  protection  of  the 
people  of  the  state  and  the  vindication  of  the  consti- 
tution of  the  United  States.” 

Senator  Smith  of  South  Carolina  presented  the 
protest  of  that  state.  It  assigned  at  length  the  reasons 
for  protesting  against  the  system  of  protecting  duties, 
which  it  pronounced  unconstitutional,  oppressive, and 
unjust;  and  lest  an  apparent  acquiescence  in  the  sys- 
tem should  be  drawn  into  precedent,  the  legislature, 
in  the  name  of  the  commonwealth,  desired  to  enter 
protest  in  the  journal  of  the  Senate.  Mr.  Smith  re- 
ferred to  the  various  restrictive  measures  of  the  gen- 
eral government — tariffs,  embargo,  and  non-inter- 
course  acts — under  which  his  state  suffered.  Further, 
he  believed  there  was  not  a man  in  the  country  not 
interested  in  manufactures  who  would  not  be  glad  to 
see  all  the  goods  used  in  the  country  smuggled  into 
it;  and  there  was  not  a virtuous  man  who  would  in- 
form. We  have  hitherto  been  celebrated  as  a moral 
people,  but  these  were  the  effects  of  your  tariff  sys- 
tem.” 


THE  TARIFF  AND  NULLIFICATION  11 J 

Mr.  Hayne  also  complained  of  the  effects  of  this 
policy  upon  the  south;  discussed  the  constitutionality 
of  the  protecting  system;  and  undertook  to  prove 
that  Jefferson  had  been  unjustly  claimed  as  a friendi 
to  that  principle.  The  protest  was  ordered  to  be 
printed. 

After  Jackson  was  elected  to  the  presidency  there 
was  much  speculation  as  to  the  position  he  would 
take  regarding  the  tariff.  As  has  been  seen,  in  1824 
he  operated  with  the  ultra  protectionists;  and  but  re- 
cently, in  his  reply  to  the  legislature  of  Indiana,  he 
had  reaffirmed  his  belief  in  the  principle.  But  of 
this  his  southern  supporters  were  uncompromising" 
opponents,  and  it  was  considered  a difficult  matter  to 
so  dispose  of  the  subject  that  neither  branch  of  his 
party  would  take  offense.  In  his  first  message  ta 
the  first  session  of  the  twenty-first  Congress,  which 
met  December  7,  1829,  his  views  were  expressed 
substantially  as  follows: 

Agriculture  and  commerce  had  not  been  so  greatljr 
injured,  nor  had  manufacturing  been  benefited  to  so 
great  a degree  from  the  operations  of  the  tariff  as  had 
been  anticipated.  No  sensible  diminution  was  per- 
ceptible in  the  importation  of  foreign  goods,  while 
the  increased  production  caused  by  domestic  compe- 
tition more  than  supplied  the  home  demand,  and  the 
consequent  reduction  of  prices  had  subjected  the  man- 
ufacturer to  partial  loss.  Unrestricted  intercourse 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


II4 

between  nations  was  desirable,  but  the  selfish  legis- 
lation of  others  must  be  counteracted  by  us.  Some 
provisions  of  the  tariff  required  modification;  and  in 
graduating  the  duties  upon  foreign  products,  our  own 
should  be  placed  in  a fair  competition  with  them; 
and  there  were  inducements  to  pass  a step  beyond 
this  in  regard  to  articles  of  prime  necessity  in  time 
of  war.  The  delicac}^  of  this  operation  required  the 
greatest  caution.  Frequent  legislation  in  regard  to 
any  branch  of  industry,  affecting  its  value  and  trans- 
ferring its  capital  to  new  channels,  was  productive 
of  hazardous  speculation  and  loss.  In  the  consider- 
ation of  this  subject  local  feelings  and  prejudices 
should  yield  to  the  determination  to  promote  the 
great  interests  of  the  whole.  They  should  have  no 
connection  with  party  conflicts.  Different  sections  of 
the  country  should  unite  in  diminishing  any  burden 
of  which  another  might  justly  complain.  The  agri- 
cultural interest,  from  its  connection  with  all  others, 
and  from  its  superior  importance,  deserved  particular 
attention.  It  was  principally  as  manufactures  and 
commerce  tended  to  increase  the  value  of  agiicultural 
productions  that  they  deserved  the  fostering  care  of 
this  government. 

In  the  famous  Webster-Hayne  debate  in  the  Senate 
in  January,  1830,  the  east  was  charged  with  hostility 
to  the  west,  and  the  tariff  was  mentioned  as  an  in- 
stance of  selfish  policy  designed  to  prevent  western 


THE  TARIFF  AND  NULLIFICATION  II5 

emigration.  Webster  repelled  the  charge  with  the 
cause  assigned  for  it.  New  England  was  not  the 
author  of  the  tariff.  The  tariff  of  i8i6  was  more  a 
southern  than  an  eastern  measure.  And  in  1824  there 
were  in  each  of  a majority  of  the  western  states,  and 
even  in  Virginia,  more  votes  in  favor  of  the  tariff  of 
that  year  than  in  Massachusetts.  It  had  been  forced 
upon  New  England. 

An  act  for  the  more  effectual  collection  of  duties 
was  passed  b}"  Congress  during  the  session  of  1829-- 
30.  Mr.  Mallary  showed  that  the  revenue  had  suffered 
very  greatly  from  frauds  committed  by  false  invoices 
and  sample  packages,  and  by  various  other  expedi- 
ents. He  estimated  that  for  the  last  ten  years  the 
treasury  had  been  defrauded  to  the  extent  of  $3,000,- 
000  annually.  Mr.  McDuffie  of  South  Carolina,  by 
way  of  amendment, offered  a bill  previously  reported 
b}^  himself,  proposing  an  essential  reduction  of  all 
the  duties  on  hemp,  wool,  cotton,  iron,  salt,  sugar, 
molasses,  etc.  He  favored  enforcing  the  collection 
of  revenue,  even  though  he  might  object  to  the  laws 
by  which  it  was  levied.  But  in  this  case  he  would 
do  it  by  the  reduction  of  the  duties,  thus  removing 
the  inducements  to  evade  them.  He  occupied  the 
floor  several  days  discussing  the  policy  of  protection 
and  exhibiting  w^hat  he  deemed  its  pernicious  effects 
upon  the  country.  His  amendment  was  negatived, 
and  the  bill  became  a law  after  receiving  some 
amendments. 


Il6  THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 

Other  acts  were  passed:  two  on  May  29,  one  of 
which  reduced  the  duty  on  molasses  from  ten  to  five 
cents  per  gallon  and  allowed  a drawback  on  spirits 
distilled  from  foreign  materials, and  the  other  reduced 
the  duty  on  salt;  and  one  a few  days  earlier  reduced 
the  duties  on  tea,  coffee,  and  cocoa.  By  the  act  of 
1828  the  tariff  was  doubled  on  molasses  and  a reve- 
nue duty  was  laid  on  tea,  coffee  and  other  articles, 
much  against  the  wish  of  consistent  protectionists. 
It  was  alleged  that  this  increase  of  duty  was  but  to 
operate  against  the  bill  by  making  it  objectionable  to 
the  friends  of  protection.  For  this  reason,  and  be- 
cause the  revenue  was  not  now  so  much  needed,  the 
passage  of  these  laws  was  doubtless  facilitated. 

President  Jackson  in  his  message  to  Congress  in 
December,  1831,  recommended  such  modification 
of  the  tariff  as  would  reduce  the  revenue  to  the  needs 
of  the  government.  The  extinction  of  the  national 
debt  during  his  term  seemed  apparent.  But  justice 
to  the  interests  of  the  merchant  and  manufacturer 
required  that  material  reductions  in  duties  be  made 
prospective. 

On  February  8,  1832,  Mr.  McDuffie,  chairman  of 
the  committee  on  ways  and  means,  reported  a bill  in 
conformity  with  the  views  of  the  opponents  of  protec- 
tion. He  proposed  a reduction  of  duties  to  the  reve- 
nue standard  after  the  payment  of  the  public  debt. 
Duties  on  iron,  steel,  sugar,  cotton,  bagging,  hemp, 


THE  TARIFF  AND  NULLIFICATION  II7 

flax,  salt,  and  manufactures  of  iron,  cotton,  and  wool, 
were  to  be  twenty  per  cent  ad  valorem  for  the  year 
following  June  30,  1832;  then  eighteen  and  three- 
fourths  per  cent  for  a year;  then  twelve  and  one-half 
per  cent  indefinitely.  All  other  goods  taxed  more 
than  twelve  and  one-half  per  cent  at  the  time  of  the 
passing  of  the  bill  were  to  be  taxed  twelve  and  one- 
half  per  cent  after  June  30,  1832.  A counter  re- 
port^ was  made  by  Ingersoll  of  Connecticut  and  Gil- 
more of  Pennsylvania.  Verplanck  of  New  York,  of 
the  same  committee,  dissented  from  both. 

At  the  request  of  the  House  Mr.  McLane,  secre- 
tary of  the  treasur}^  made  a report  on  the  tariff  on 
April  27,  1832,  accompanying  it  by  a bill.^  This 
bill  was  framed  to  bring  a revenue  of  $12,000,000  a 
3^ear,  a reduction  of  about  $10,000,000.  It  reduced 
the  duty  on  unmanufactured  wool  not  exceeding  ten 
cents  per  pound  in  value  to  five  per  cent  ad  valorem; 
on  that  exceeding  ten  cents,  to  twenty  per  cent.  On 
manufactures  of  wool  the  rate  varied  from  ten  to  fifty 
per  cent.  The  minimum  system  as  to  woolens^  ex- 
cept the  cheaper  qualities,  was  wholly  abolished. 
Cotton  goods  not  exceeding  thirty-five  cents  per  yard 
in  value  were  rated  at  twenty  per  cent.  Iron  was 
rated  at  from  fifty  cents  per  112  pounds  to  $30  per 
ton  in  certain  forms,  and  at  thirty  per  cent  ad  val- 
orem in  others.  On  sugar  the  rate  was  two  and  one- 

1.  For  these  reports  see  Niles,  XLIL,  1B4  foil. 

2.  Ib.,  p.  188  foil. 


Il8  THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 

half  to  three  and  one-third  cents  per  pound.  On  all 
articles  not  named  as  free  or  dutiable,  the  rate  was  to 
be  fifteen  per  cent,  making  the  aggregate  sum  as 
nearly  as  possible  equal  to  the  necessary  expenditures 
of  the  government.  The  bill  was  a compromise, 
and  satisfied  neither  of  the  two  great  interests  which 
would  chiefl}^  be  affected  by  a reduction  of  the  reve- 
nue. Neither  it  nor  the  preceding  seems  to  have  re- 
ceived any  notice  in  the  House  except  a lengthy 
speech  from  Mr.  McDuffie  in  support  of  his  bill. 

On  May  23  John  Quincy  Adams, from  the  committee 
on  manufactures,  reported  a bilk  which  dissented 
from  some  of  the  views  expressed  b}^  the  president  in 
his  message,  and  contrasted  them  with  those  pre- 
viously declared  by  him,  showing  the  two  to  be  in 
plain  collision.  The  committee  decidedly  objected 
to  the  suggestion  of  submitting  each  interest  ^‘singly 
for  deliberation,”  without  reference  to  a general  sys- 
tem. They  held  that  by  such  a rule  no  system  of 
protection  had  ever  been  adopted,  and  by  it  none 
could  stand;  and  they  feared  an  attempt  to  disturb 
the  tariff  so  recently  revised  would  ‘^spread  alarm 
among  the  great  interests  of  the  country,  shake  con- 
fidence in  the  plighted  faith  of  the  government,  and 
expose  the  whole  country  to  the  dangers  of  a most 
selfish  policy  which  might  be  adopted  by  foreign 
nations.” 

1,  Niles,  XLII.,  231,  244,  and  247. 


THE  TARIFF  AND  NULLIFICATION  I I9 

The  bill  presented  by  Mr.  Adams  was  drawn  so 
as  to  receive  the  support  of  a majority  of  the  com- 
mittee, but  was  not  in  all  details  satisfactory  to  any 
one  of  its  members.  However,  it  supplanted  those 
of  McDuffie  and  McLane.  The  discussion  was  a brief 
one  and  was  led  by  Bell  of  Tennessee  and  McDuffie 
for  the  south,  and  by  Burgess  of  Rhode  Island  for 
the  north.  Sectional  lines  were  closely  drawn  by 
the  southern  speakers.  A few  amendments  were 
made,  and  it  passed  the  House  on  June  28  by  a vote 
of  132  to  65.  The  Senate  made  a number  of  amend- 
ments, some  of  which  were  agreed  to  by  the  House. 
A conference  was  had  on  the  others,  and  the  Senate 
receded  from  them.  The  bill  then  passed  the  Senate 
by  a large  majority — 32  to  16.  The  votes  against 
it  in  both  houses  were  chiefl}^  from  members  who  ob-’ 
jected  to  it  because  it  did  not  surrender  the  frincifle 
of  protection. 

Under  this  act  the  minimum  system  of  1828  was 
entirel}^  abolished.  The  duty  on  hemp  was  reduced 
from  $60  a ton  to  $40.  On  flax  the  duty  had  been 
$60  a ton,  but  it  was  now  transferred  to  the  free  list. 
Pig- and  bar-iron  were  put  back  to  the  rates  of  1824, 


CHAPTER  VIIL 


THE  COMPROMISE  WITH  NULLIFICATION. 

During  the  period  between  the  war  of  1812  and 
the  compromise  with  nullification  a number  of  other 
acts  relating  to  customs  duties  were  passed.  They 
were  the  following : 

February  13,  1813,  an  act  imposing  a duty  on  iron 
wire. 

July  29,  1813,  an  act  laying  a duty  on  imported 
salt,  with  provisions  about  fisheries. 

March  3,  1815,  an  act  abolishing  discriminating 
duties  in  the  case  of  nations  which  had  abolished 
discriminations  against  the  United  States. 

February  15,  1816,  an  act  continuing  the  war  duties 
of  1812  until  June  30,  1816,  and  thereafter  imposing 
forty-eight  per  cent  in  addition  to  the  rates  previous 
to  July  I,  1812. 

April  30,  1816,  an  act  concerning  drawbacks. 

April  20,  1818,  an  act  relating  to  methods  of  ad- 
ministration. 

March  3,  1819,  two  acts:  one  relating  to  discrimi- 
LTating  duties,  the  other  to  regulate  duties  on  certain 
wines. 


120 


THE  COMPRC  MISE  WITH  NULLIFICATION 


I2I 


February  ii,  1825,  an  act  remitting  duties  on  books 
and  maps  for  the  library  of  Congress. 

May  19,  1828,  an  act  altering  certain  duties. 

May  24,  1828,  an  act  relative  to  discriminating 
duties. 

July  23,  1832,  a section  of  seven  lines,  in  an  act 
to  carry  out  the  convention  with  France,  relative  to 
duties  on  wines;  and  an  act  concerning  tonnage  on 
Spanish  vessels. 

March  2,  1833,  an  act  to  explain  and  amend  the 
act  of  1832. 

In  the  south  strong  opposition  continued  to  be 
made  to  the  tariff.  This  was  especially  true  in  South 
Carolina,  where  the  leaders  of  public  opinion  con- 
tinually kept  the  minds  of  the  people  almost  in  a 
state  of  white  heat.  At  length,  with  the  moral  sup- 
port of  Georgia  and  Alabama,  she  did  what  she  had 
so  long  threatened — resolved  to  forcibly  oppose  the 
enforcement  of  the  tariff  laws.  At  the  call  of  the 
governor,  the  legislature  met  on  October  22,  1832. 
An  act  was  passed  calling  a convention  to  meet  on 
the  third  Monday  in  November  ‘‘to  consider  the 
character  and  extent  of  the  usurpations  of  the  general 
government.”  The  members  of  the  minority  ap- 
pealed to  the  people  of  the  state  to  discountenance 
the  nullification  scheme.  The  passage  of  the  act 
caused  great  rejoicing.  The  convention  met  on 
November  19,  and  on  the  24th  adopted  “An  act  to 


122 


THE  AMERICAN  Ty  RIFF 


nullify  certain  acts  of  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  purporting  to  be  laws  laying  duties  and  im- 
posts on  the  importations  of  foreign  commodities*”^ 
It  declared  that  the  acts  of  1828  and  1832  ‘‘are  un- 
authorized by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States 
and  violate  the  true  meaning  and  intent  thereof,  and 
are  null,  void,  and  no  law,  nor  binding  upon  this 
State,  its  officers  or  citizens;  and  all  promises,  con- 
tracts, or  obligations  made  or  entered  into,  or  to  be 
made  or  entered  into  with  purpose  to  secure  the 
duties  imposed  by  the  said  acts,  and  all  judicial  pro- 
ceedings which  shall  hereafter  be  had  in  affirmance 
thereof,  are  and  shall  be  utterly  null  and  void. 

“And  it  is  further  ordained  that  it  shall  not  be  law- 
ful for  any  of  the  constituted  authorities,  whether 
of  this  State  or  of  the  United  States,  to  enforce  the 
payment  of  duties  imposed  by  the  said  acts  within  the 
limits  of  this  State;  but  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
legislature  to  adopt  such  measures  and  pass  such  acts 
as  may  be  necessary  to  give  full  effect  to  this  ordi- 
nance, and  to  prevent  the  enforcement  and  arrest  the 
operation  of  the  said  acts  and  parts  of  acts  of  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  within  the  limits  of 
this  State,  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  February 
next,  and  the  duty  of  all  other  constituted  authori- 
ties, and  of  all  persons  residing  or  being  within  the 
limits  of  this  State,  and  they  are  hereby  required  and 

1.  See  Benton’s  "Thirty  Years’  View,’’  I.,  297, 


THE  COMPROMISE  WITH  NULLIFICATION 


123 


enjoined  to  obey  and  give  effect  to  this  ordinance 
and  such  acts  and  measures  of  the  legislature  as  may 
be  passed  or  adopted  in  obedience  thereto.” 

It  further  ordained  that  from  the  decisions  of  the 
courts  of  that  state  or  acts  of  the  legislature  relating 
to  the  ordinance,  no  appeal  should  be  taken  or  allowed 
to  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States.  All  pub- 
lic officers  except  members  of  the  legislature  were 
required  to  take  oath  to  obey  and  enforce  the  ordi- 
nance and  the  acts  of  the  legislature  authorized  by  it. 
And  it  was  finally  declared  that  rather  than  submit 
to  force  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  South  Caro- 
lina would  withdraw  from  the  Union  and  organize  a 
separate  government. 

South  Carolina  had  now  placed  herself  in  a position 
of  open  and  forcible  resistance  to  the  government  of 
the  United  States.  And  before  the  date  fixed  upon 
it  was  hardly  possible  for  the  existing  Congress  ‘to 
amend  the  laws,  even  if  it  had  wished  to  do  so.  Be- 
sides, the  new  Congress,  on  which  dependence  was 
especially  placed,  would  have  no  legal  existence  un- 
til more  than  a month  after  the  ordinance  was  to  go 
into  effect.  It  was  signed  b}^  more  than  one  hundred 
citizens  of  the  greatest  respectability,  and  officially 
sent  to  President  Jackson.  The  legislature  passed 
the  laws  necessary  to  put  the  ordinance  into  operation, 
and  authorized  the  use  of  military  force  and  the  pur- 
chase of  one  thousand  stands  of  arms.  The  presi* 


124 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


dent  had  referred  only  briefly,  in  his  message  to 
Congress  on  December  3,  to  the  opposition  in  South 
Carolina  to  the  revenue  laws.  He  thought  any  re- 
volt could  be  suppressed  under  the  present  laws;  but 
in  case  any  exigency  should  arise,  prompt  notice 
would  be  given. 

Almost  immediately  after  the  delivery  of  this  mes- 
sage, news  reached  Washington  of  the  passage  of 
the  ordinance.  Jackson  took  decided  action  at  once. 
General  Scott  was  ordered  to  Charleston,  troops  were 
collected,  and  two  vessels  of  war  were  sent.  On 
December  10  he  issued  his  proclamation  to  the  peo- 
ple of  South  Carolina.  It  was  written  by  Edward 
Livingston,  secretary  of  state,  who  was  a native  of 
New  York,  but  then  a resident  of  Louisiana.  ‘^The 
word  proclamation  does  not  describe  it.  It  reads 
more  like  the  last  appeal  of  a sorrowing  but  resolute 
father  to  wayward,  misguided  sons.  Argument, 
warning,  entreaty  were  blended  in  its  composition.”  ^ 
‘Ht  has  been  asserted  that  Jackson  did  not  like  the 
constitutional  doctrines  of  the  proclamation,  which 
are  Madisonian  Federalist,  and  not  such  as  he  held, 
but  that  he  let  the  paper  pass  because  of  the  lack  of 
time  to  modif};^  it.  There  is  nothing  of  the  Jackson- 
ian temper  in  the  document.  It  is  strong,  moderate, 
eloquent,  and  at  last,  even  pathetic.”  ^ 

The  proclamation^  is  of  great  length.  Aside  from 

1.  Parton’s  “Life  of  Jackson,”  III.,  467. 

•?.  Snmner’s  “Jackson,”  p.  282. 

3.  Williams’  “Statesman’s  Manual,’’  II. ,794;  Benton’s  “Thirty  Years’  View/T., 


THE  COMPROMISE  WITH  NULLIFICATION  1 25 

the  southern  nuilifiers,  it  voiced  the  opinion  and  feel- 
ing of  the  whole  country,  and  brought  Jackson  the 
support  of  many  people  who  had  opposed  him.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  completely  astonished  the  southern* 
ers,  who  deemed  it  inconsistent,  even  treacherous, 
and  who  ascribed  the  attitude  taken  b}’  Jackson  to 
his  hatred  of  Calhoun.  They  denounced  it  as  a 
‘‘declaration  of  war  by  Andrew  Jackson  against  the 
State  of  South  Carolina;”  “the  edict  of  a dictator;” 
and  in  other  equally  strong  expressions.  The  sup- 
porters of  the  government  were  strong,  however,  in 
Charleston  and  in  the  western  counties  of  the  state, 
and  though  in  the  minority,  did  all  they  could  to  sus- 
tain it.  Hayne,  who  had  just  been  elected  governor, 
issued  a counter  proclamation  to  that  of  the  presi- 
dent. 

Finally,  so  far  did  the  leaders  go,  that  the  presi- 
dent felt  the  need  of  further  powers.  Accordingly 
on  Januar}^  i6,  1833,  he  sent  a message^  to  Congress 
officially  notif3nog  that  body  of  the  state  of  affairs, 
and  suggesting  that  such  measures  be  adopted  as  the 
crisis  seemed  to  demand.  In  conformity  with  this 
recommendation  the  judiciar}^  committee  reported  a 
bill  giving  him  power  to  employ  the  land  and  naval 
forces  of  the  government  to  enforce  the  collection 
of  the  revenue  if  resistance  should  be  offered. 

Meantime  Virginia  offered  to  mediate  between 

1.  See  localities  cited. 


126  THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 

South  Carolina  and  the  general  government.  Her 
legislature  adopted  resolutions  asking  South  Caro- 
lina to  rescind  the  ordinance  of  nullification,  or  at 
least  to  suspend  its  operation  until  the  close  of  the 
first  session  of  the  next  Congress;  requesting  Con- 
gress graduall}^  and  speedily  to  reduce  the  revenue 
from  duties  on  imports  to  the  standard  of  the  nec- 
essary expenses  of  the  government;  and  reasseiting 
the  doctrine  of  state  sovereignty  and  state  rights  as 
set  forth  in  the  resolutions  of  1798,  which  neither 
sanctioned  the  ordinance  of  South  Carolina  nor  coun- 
tenanced all  the  principles  of  the  proclamation,  many 
of  which  were  in  direct  conflict  with  them.  A com- 
missioner was  appointed  to  carry  the  resolutions  to 
the  governor  of  South  Carolina  to  be  laid  before  the 
legislature,  and  to  expostulate  with  the  public  authori- 
ties and  the  people  of  that  state  for  the  preservation 
of  the  peace  of  the  Union. 

The  revision  of  the  taritT,  too,  had  already  been 
undertaken  by  Congress.  The  president  had  recom- 
mended it  in  his  message  at  the  opening  of  the  ses- 
sion. He  thought  that  a tariff  of  high  duties,  de- 
signed for  perpetual  protection,  had  enteied  into  the 
minds  of  but  few  American  statesmen;  that  the  most 
they  had  anticipated  was  a temporary  and  generally 
incidental  protection.  But  experience  makes  it  doubt- 
ful whether  the  advantages  of  a protective  system  are 
not  counterbalanced  by  many  evils.  What  then  was 


THE  COMPROMISE  WITH  NULLIFICATION 


127 


to  be  done?  Obviousl}^  nothing  but  the  public  safety 
could  justify  the  sudden  abandonment  of  those  in- 
dustries which  had  grown  up  under  the  implied 
pledge  of  national  legislation.  But  capital  invested 
in  them  cannot  expect  that  the  people  will  continue 
to  pay  high  taxes  permanently  for  its  benefit  when 
the  money  is  not  required  for  any  legitimate  admin- 
istrative purposes.  Is  it  not  enough  that  the  high 
duties  have  been  paid  as  long  as  the  money  arising 
from  them  could  be  applied  to  the  extinguishment  of 
the  public  debt? 

An  enlarged  view  of  the  condition  of  the  country 
showed  that  the  policy  of  protection  must  ultimately 
be  limited  to  those  articles  of  domestic  manufacture 
which  are  indispensable  in  time  of  war.  Beyond 
this  limit  the  system  was  productive  of  discontent. 
Its  tendency  was,  some  held,  to  concentrate  wealth 
into  a few  hands,  thus  creating  monopolies. 

On  December  13  the  Senate  called  on  the  secre- 
tary of  the  treasury,  Louis  McLane,  for  recommen- 
dations for  a new  tariff  bill,  and  on  December  27  Mr. 
Verplanck,  chairman  of  the  House  committee  on 
ways  and  means,  reported  a bill  based  on  the  secre- 
tary’s views.  It  proposed  a sweeping  reduction, 
amounting  within  two  years  to  almost  one-half  the 
rates  under  former  tariffs,  with  a further  reduction 
after  1834  to  a “ horizontal”  rate  of  fifteen  or  twenty 
per  cent.  This  reduction  was  advocated  because  the 


128 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


payment  of  the  national  debt  had  made  $13,000,000 
(one-half)  of  the  public  revenue  unnecessary.  The 
debate  on  the  bill  lingered  in  the  House  until  late  in 
February.  The  immediate  friends  of  the  adminis- 
tration seemed  to  be  the  only  ones  who  heartilj^  sup- 
ported it,  and  they  were  greatly  outnumbered  b}^  the 
opponents.  So  many  amendments  were  made  that 
it  almost  lost  its  identity. 

Although  the  probability  was  small  that  the  bill 
would  pass  before  adjournment,  the  protectionists 
feared  an  attempt  would  be  made  in  the  next  Con- 
gress to  destroy  the  protective  system.  To  prevent 
this  if  possible,  and  to  avert  civil  war,  Mr.  Clay  on 
Februar}^  12,  1833,  introduced  into  the  Senate  his 
compromise  bill,  and  spoke  at  some  length  in  support 
of  it.  He  said: 

believe  the  American  system  to  be  in  the  great- 
est danger;  and  I believe  it  can  be  placed  on  a better 
and  safer  foundation  at  this  session  than  at  the  next. 
I heard  with  surprise  my  friend  from  Massachusetts 
say  that  nothing  had  occurred  within  the  last  six 
months  to  increase  its  hazard.  I entreat  him  to  re- 
view that  opinion.  Is  it  correct?  Is  the  issue  of 
numerous  elections,  including  that  of  the  highest 
officer  in  the  government,  nothing?  Is  the  explicit 
recommendation  of  that  officer  in  his  message  at  the 
opening  of  the  session,  sustained  as  he  is  by  a recent 
triumphant  election,  nothing?  Is  his  declaration  in 
his  proclamation  that  the  burdens  of  the  south  ought 
to  be  relieved,  nothing?  Is  the  introduction  of  the 
bill  in  the  House  of  Representatives  during  this  ses- 


THE  COMPROMISE  WITH  NULLIFICATION 


129 


sion,  sanctioned  by  the  head  of  the  treasury  and  the 
administration,  prostrating  the  greater  part  of  the 
manufactures  of  the  country,  nothing?  Are  the  in- 
creasing discontents  nothing?  Is  the  tendency  of 
recent  events  to  unite  the  whole  south  nothing? 
What  have  we  not  witnessed  in  this  chamber?  Friends 
of  the  administration  bursting  all  the  ties  which 
seemed  indissolubly  to  unite  them  to  its  chief  and, 
with  few  exceptions  south  of  the  Potomac,  opposing 
and  vehemently  opposing  a favorite  measure  of  that 
administration,  which  three  short  months  ago  they 
contributed  to  establish!  Let  us  not  deceive  our- 
selves, Now  is  the  time  to  adjust  the  question  in  a 
manner  satisfactory  to  both  parties.  Put  it  off  until 
the  next  session  and  the  alternative  may,  and  probably 
then  would  be,  a speed}’  and  ruinous  reduction  of  the 
tariff  or  a civil  war  with  the  entire  south.” 

He  wished  the  tariff  withdrawn  from  politics,  ex- 
pressing himself  thus  wdth  respect  to  that  withdrawal: 

wish  to  see  the  tariff  separated  from  the  politics 
of  the  country,  that  business  men  may  go  to  work  in 
security,  with  some  prospect  of  stability  in  our  laws, 
and  without  everything  being  staked  on  the  issue  of 
elections,  as  it  were  on  the  hazard  of  the  die.”  He 
then  explained  the  principles  of  his  bill,  which  was  a 
series  of  annual  reductions  of  one-tenth  of  all  the 
duties  above  twenty  per  cent  on  January  i,  1834; 
one-tenth  more  on  January  i,  1836;  again  one-tenth 
in  1838;  and  another  in  1840.  On  January  i,  1842, 
one-half  the  remaining  excess  was  to  be  taken  off, 
and  on  July  first  the  other  half.  After  that  time  the 


130 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


duties  on  about  one  hundred  articles  were  to  be 
wholly  abolished.  Most  of  these  articles  were  not 
produced  in  the  country  or  did  not  stand  in  need  of 
protection.  But  Congiess  was  to  have  the  right,  in 
case  of  war  with  any  foreign  power,  to  impose  such 
duties  as  might  be  necessary  to  prosecute  the  war. 
On  coarse  woolens,  however,  costing  not  more  than 
thirty-five  cents  per  square  yard,  the  duty  on  which 
had  been  reduced  to  live  per  cent  by  the  act  of  1832, 
should  first  be  raised  to  fifty  per  cent,  the  same  as 
the  rate  on  other  woolens.  To  the  free  list  were  to 
be  added,  after  December  31,  1833,  silk  manufactures 
coming  from  this  side  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
and  worsted  goods.  After  1842  Congress  might,  at 
discretion,  impose  duties  not  exceeding  twenty  per 
cent  on  the  home  valuation  of  all  goods  then  free  or 
paying  less  than  twent}^  per  cent;  all  duties  to  be 
paid  in  cash,  credits  being  abolished. 

Objection  was  made  to  the  introduction  of  the 
bill  in  the  Senate  on  the  ground  that  all  bills  for 
raising  revenue, to  which  class  all  tariff  bills  belonged, 
could  originate  only  in  the  House.  But  it  was  con- 
tended that  the  purpose  of  this  bill  being  to  reduce 
revenue,  the  constitution  would  not  prohibit  its 
origin  in  the  Senate. 

The  chief  opposition  to  the  bill  came  from  the 
advocates  of  protection.  Mr.  Webster  opposed  it  be- 
cause, in  giving  up  specific  duties  and  substituting 


THE  COMPROMISE  WITH  NULEIFICATION  I3I 

ad  valorem^  it  abandoned  the  policy  of  protection, 
and  because  it  restricted  the  future  legislation  of  Con- 
gress. After  a few  of  the  first  reductions, the  manu- 
facturers of  some  kinds  of  goods  would  be  ruined; 
such  goods  as  boots,  shoes,  and  clothing.  Calico 
printing  establishments  would  be  broken  up.  Woolen 
establishments  could  not  stand  with  a duty  of  twenty 
per  cent.  The  protection  of  iron,  too,  was  too  low. 
A change  from  specific  to  ad  valorem  duties  would 
be  injurious,  and  once  made,  we  could  never  return 
to  the  present  state  of  things. 

On  February  25,  while  the  House  was  engaged  in 
a stormy  debate  over  Mr.  Verplanck’s  bill,  Mr. 
Letcher  of  Kentucky  moved  to  strike  out  the  whole 
of  it  except  the  enacting  clause  and  insert  that  of  Mr. 
Clay.  This  motion  was  unexpected  to  some  of  the 
members,  and  they  were  surprised  and  amazed;  but 
the  majority  was  ready  for  action.  Delay  was  asked 
but  was  not  granted.  The  bill  was  strongly  opposed 
on  the  ground  of  hasty  action.  It  was  introduced 
late  in  the  evening,  but  before  adjournment  it  was 
ordered  to  third  reading  by  a vote  of  105  to  71.  The 
mass  of  the  manufacturing  interest  voted  against  it. 
It  passed  the  House  the  next  day,  1181084.  On 
March  i the  bill  was  again  taken  up  in  the  Senate  in 
the  form  in  which  it  had  passed  the  House,  and  was 
advocated  by  Clay,  Calhoun,  Ewing,  and  others, 
and  opposed  by  Webster,  Dallas,  Forsyth  and 


132 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


Wright.  However,  both  the  latter  voted  for  the 
bill,  probably  on  the  ground  of  its  being  a pacific 
measure.  The  vote  was  yeas  29,  nays  16. 

‘^And  the  bill  was  called  a ‘compromise,’”  says 
Senator  Benton,  who  opposed  it, which  the  diction- 
aries define  to  be  an  ‘agreement  without  the  inter- 
vention of  arbitrators;’  and  so  called,  it  was  imme- 
diately proclaimed  to  be  sacred  and  inviolable,  as 
founded  on  mutual  consent,  although  the  only  share 
which  the  manufacturing  states  (Pennsylvania,  New 
Jersey,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island, 
Vermont)  had  in  making  the  ‘compromise’  was  to  see 
it  sprung  upon  them  without  notice,  executed  upon 
them  as  a surprise,  and  forced  upon  them  by  anti- 
tariff votes,  against  the  strenuous  resistance  of  their 
senators  and  representatives  in  both  Houses  of  Con- 
gress.” 

This  compromise  tariff  settled  nothing.  Jackson 
wanted  it  for  the  sole  purpose  of  saving  the  Union. 
Clay,  although  he  ‘‘would  rather  be  right  than  be 
president,”  was  yet  a candidate  for  the  presidency, 
and  “the  concealed  magnet  of  the  White  House  often 
makes  the  most  honest  compasses  deflect  from  the 
north  star  of  principle.”^  The  bill  was  the  result  of 
an  agreement  between  Clay  and  Calhoun,  leaders  in 
opposing  camps.  “Considered  as  a political  meas- 
ure,” says  Professor  Taussig,^  “the  act  of  1833  may 

1.  “Thirty  Years’  View,”  I.,  319. 

2.  Thompson,  “Political  Economy,”  p.  353. 

3. -  ‘Tariff  History  of  the  United  States,”  p.  111. 


THE  COMPROMISE  WITH  NULLIFICATION 


133 


deserve  commendation.  As  an  economic  or  finan- 
cial measure  there  is  little  to  be  said  of  it.  It  was 
badly  drafted.  No  provision  was  made  in  it  as  to 
specific  duties;  and  yet  it  was  obviously  meant  to 
apply  to  such  duties,  and  the  secretary  of  the  treas- 
ury had  to  take  it  upon  himself  to  frame  rules  as  to 
the  manner  of  ascertaining  the  valorem  equivalents 
of  specific  duties  and  making  the  reductions  called 
for  by  the  act.” 

As  has  been  seen,  the  president  in  his  message  to 
Congress  in  January  requested  that  increased  powers 
be  given  him  so  that  he  might  act  effectually  in  the 
difficulty  with  South  Carolina,  and  the  Senate  com- 
mittee on  judiciary  reported  a bill  on  the  21st  for  the 
enforcement  of  the  collection  of  revenue.  This  was 
currently  called  the  “Force  Bill,”  and  in  South  Caro- 
lina the  “Bloody  Bill.”  It  was  opposed  by  Tyler 
and  supported  by  Webster.  It  was  not  passed  until 
February  20,  action  on  it  having  been  delayed  by 
the  debate  on  the  tariff.  The  vote  was  32  to  i,  all 
the  senators  opposing  the  bill  having  withdrawn  ex- 
cept Tyler.  In  the  House  the  vote  was  150  to  35. 
Thus  by  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  and  enforcement 
acts,  “the  olive  branch  and  the  rod  were  bound  up 
too^ether,” 

o 

The  ordinance  of  nullification  w'as  to  go  into  effect 
on  February  i,  but  owing  to  the  intervention  of  Vir- 
ginia and  the  introduction  into  Congress  of  a bill  to 


134 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


modify  the  tariff,  it  was  agreed  by  common  consent 
to  suspend  the  operation  of  the  ordinance  until  after 
the  adjournment  of  Congress.  The  compromise  tariff 
was  not  altogether  acceptable  to  the  nullifiers,  but 
was  regarded  as  a substantial  victory.  At  any  rate 
it  afforded  South  Carolina  a plausible  reason  for  re~ 
ceding  from  the  unenviable  position  into  which  she 
had  thrust  herself.  At  the  call  of  the  governor  the 
convention  met  again  on  March  ii.  The  tariff'  had 
gone  into  effect  on  March  3,  and  the  convention  re- 
pealed the  ordinance  of  nullification.  But  before 
adjourning  it  passed  anotlier,  nullifying  the  enforce- 
ment act. 

Although  not  wholly  satisfied,  South  Carolina 
claimed  the  glory  of  a triumph.  One  of  the  leading 
newspapers  expressed  the  sentiments  of  the  nullifi- 
cation part}^  generally  as  follows: 

‘‘Never  was  there  a prouder  instance  of  the  might 
of  just  principles,  backed  by  a high  courage.  This 
little  State,  a mere  panoply  of  courage  and  high 
principles,  has  foiled  the  swaggering  giant  of  the 
Union.  Thirty  thousand  Carolinians  have  not  only 
awed  the  wild  west  into  respect — compelled  Penn- 
sylvania stolidity  into  something  like  sense — New 
York  corruption  into  something  like  decency — Yan- 
kee rapacity  into  a sort  of  image  of  honesty;  but 
(alluding  to  the  Union  party)  all  this  has  been  loftily 
and  steadily  done  in  the  face  of  17,000 — ^what  shall 
we  call  them?  What  epithet  is  of  a shame  wide, 
lasting,  and  deep  enough  for  the  betrayers  of  the 
liberties  of  their  country — the  instigators  of  merciless 


THE  COMPROMISE  WITH  NULLIFICATION 


135 


slaughter — the  contrivers  of  irretrievable  servitude, 
against  their  own  striving  State? 

•^The  tariff,  then,  is  overthrown;  the  corrupt  ma- 
jorities in  Congress  have  yielded.  The  madness  of 
the  government  has,  at  last,  found  a slight  lucid  in- 
terval.” 

Speaking  of  the  enforcement  act,  the  editor  said 
he  believed  it  had  been  passed  ‘4n  mere  bravado, 
only  to  cover  up  the  shame  of  their  defeat;”  it  was 
quite  certain  it  would  not  be  submitted  to  by  that 
State.” 

Under  the  act  of  1833  the  gradual  reduction  of  the 
tariff  which  it  provided  for  went  on,  as  did  also  the 
gradual  closing  up  of  the  factories  and  shops.  The 
capital  invested  in  manufactures  was  driven  into 
other  channels.  The  sale  of  public  lands  rose  in 
1836  to  more  than  ten  times  the  former  average  rate. 
Inflation  of  prices  and  expansion  of  currency  pro- 
ceeded to  an  enormous  extent,  and  imports  increased 
seventy-five  per  cent.  There  was  wild  speculation 
of  all  kinds.  And  the  result  was  a financial  panic 
in  1837  which  affected  the  whole  country,  from  the 
• general  government  down  to  the  laborer.  The  reve- 
nue of  th^  government  was  reduced  to  such  an  ex- 
tent that  it  was  obliged  to  ask  for  loans  both  at  home 
and  abroad.  In  1832  the  duties  averaged  44.23  per 
cent  on  the  total  importations,  and  47.38  per  cent  on 
those  that  were  dutiable;  but  in  1834  they  were  re- 
duced to  21.83  cent  and  40.19  per  cent,  and  in 


136 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


1837  as  low  as  16,05  and  29. 18  respectively.  In  1842 
the  rates  on  dutiable  commodities  had  reached  an 
average  of  25.81  per  cent.  In  July  1836  and  Sep- 
tember 1841  acts  were  passed  relating  to  the  tariff, 
but  they  made  only  very  slight  changes. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  WALKER  TARIFF  AND  THE  ACT  OF  1 85  7. 


Because  of  the  low  stage  to  which  the  business  of 
the  countiw  had  fallen,  it  was  generally  agreed  at  the 
opening  of  Congress  in  December  1841  that  the 
revenue  should  be  increased,  and  a revision  of  the 
tariff  was  begun.  The  presidential  election  of  1840 
had  resulted  in  a revolution  against  the  Democratic 
party,  and  the  success  of  General  Harrison  was  the 
downfall  of  Van  Buren.  The  House  committee  on 
manufactures  experienced  great  delay  in  obtaining 
the  information  needed  upon  which  to  base  a report, 
and  it  was  not  until  March,  1842, that  one  was  made. 
The  report  stated  that  the  estimated  expenses  for  the 
current  year  were  about  $26,000,000,  which  would 
leave  a deficit  of  about  $14,000,000.  The  demands 
on  the  treasury  would  probably  be  so  great  that  it  was 
absolutely  necessary  that  permanent  provision  should 
be  made  for  an  increased  revenue.  That  from  the 
twenty  per  cent  duties  of  1833,  be  collected  after 
the  thirtieth  of  the  following  June,  would  not  exceed 
$15,000,000.  The  committee  stated  the  provision;^ 
of  their  bill  as  follows: 

I.  A general  ad  valo^^em  duty  of  thirty  per  cent, 
137 


138 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


with  a few  exceptions,  where  the  duty  is  on  that 
principle. 

2.  A discrimination  is  made,  for  the  security  of 
certain  interests  requiring  it,  by  specific  duties,  in 
some  instances  below,  in  others  above,  the  rate  of 
general  ad  valorem  duty. 

3.  As  a general  principle,  the  duty  on  the  articles 
subject  to  discrimination  is  made  at  the  rate  it  was  in 
1840,  after  the  deduction  of  four-tenths  of  the  excess 
over  twenty  per  cent  under  the  act  of  1833.  Many 
departments  of  industry  were  successful  under  this 
reduction  which  would  not  bear  the  reduction  of 
January  last,  and  would  be  overwhelmed  under  the 
full  operation  of  that  act. 

While  this  bill  was  being  discussed  in  committee 
of  the  whole,  Mr.  Fillmore  of  the  committee  of  ways 
and  means  laid  before  the  House  the  report  of  the 
secretary  of  the  treasury,  Mr.  Forward.  He  recom- 
mended a bill  more  of  a revenue  character  than  the 
above. 

As  the  last  reduction  under  the  compromise  act 
was  to  take  place  on  June  30,  and  as  there*  was  no 
prospect  of  the  passage  of  a new  tariff  law  in  time  to 
prevent  the  operation  of  that  act,  a bill  was  reported 
and  was  taken  up  on  June  10  to  extend  until  August 
i»all  laws  regulating  the  duties  existing  and  in  force 
on  June  i,  with  the  proviso  that  nothing  therein 
contained  should  suspend  the  operations  of  the  dis- 


THE  WALKER  TARIFF  AND  THE  ACT  OF  1857  1 39 

tribution  law — the  law  passed  at  the  extra  session  of 
the  preceding  year  to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  public  lands  among  the  states.  This  bill  was 
intended  primarily  to  afford  time  to  pass  a perma- 
nent law,  but  was  also  deemed  necessary  for  another 
purpose.  The  compromise  act  provided  that  after 
June  30  there  was  to  be  a home  valuation  and  cash 
duties.  No  law  had  been  passed  to  regulate  the  col- 
lection under  these  provisions,  and  it  was  doubted 
whether  there  was  any  law  to  enforce  them.  This 
provisional  tariff  act  passed  the  House  by  a vote  of 
1 16  to  103  on  June  15;  and  the  Senate  24  to  19  on 
the  24th.  On  the  29th  the  president,  Mr.  Tyler,  re- 
turned it  with  his  veto.  The  bill  was  again  debated 
for  several  days,  and  on  July  4,  when  the  question 
was  taken  on  the  passage  of  the  bill  over  the  veto, 
it  fell  short  of  the  required  two  thirds, the  vote  being 
1 14  yeas  to  95  nays,  with  31  absent. 

On  the  next  day  the  House  again  took  up  the  com- 
mittee’s bill,  and  on  the  i6th,  after  receiving  several 
amendments,  it  passed  b}^  a vote  of  116  to  iii.  It 
passed  the  Senate  on  August  5,  25  to  23.  The  vote 
in  both  Houses  was  almost  strictly  partisan.  One 
Democrat  in  the  House  (Mr,  Parmenter  of  Massa- 
chusetts) voted  for  the  bill  and  sixteen  Whigs  against 
it,  all  but  one  being  from  the  southern  states.  In  the 
Senate  the  votes  in  its  favor  were  all  Whigs,  while 
three  Whig  senators  from  the  south  voted  against  it. 


140 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


This  bill  also  failed  to  receive  the  approval  of  the 
president, and  was  returned  to  the  House  with  another 
veto.  This  ‘‘ditto”  veto,  as  it  was  called,  was  taken 
up  the  next  day  for  consideration,  and  on  motion  of 
John  Quincy  Adams  the  unusual  course  was  taken  of 
referring  it  to  a select  committee  of  thirteen  members, 
with  instructions  to  report  upon  it  to  the  House.  This 
committee  divided  politically  and  three  reports  came 
from  it,  one  against  the  veto  and  two  for  it.  When 
the  bill  was  put  to  vote  again  it  was  found  to  fall 
as  far  short  of  a two-thirds  majority  as  at  first,  and 
was  rejected. 

But  additional  revenue  was  absolutely  necessar3\ 
It  was  now  near  the  end  of  August,  and  Congress 
had  been  in  session  nine  months.  A bill  was  hurried 
through  the  House  in  a few  days — the  same  as  that 
before  passed,  except  that  the  clause  requiring  the 
distribution ’of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public 
lands  was  dropped,  and  a change  made  which  ad- 
mitted coffee  free  of  dut}^  and  also  tea  imported  from 
beyond  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  in  American  vessels. 
The  vote  was  close — 105  to  103.  The  bill  passed  the 
Senate,  after  receiving  some  amendments  with  which 
the  House  concurred,  by  a vote  that  was  likewise 
close — 25  to  23.  It  was  approved  by  the  president 
on  August  30.  The  contest  between  him  and  Con- 
gress had  been  quite  spirited.^  The  average  duties 
under  this  act  rose  to  30.50  per  cent  on  total  impor- 

J,  See  Von  Holsi’s  “Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,”  II.,  451-463, 


THE  WALKER  TARIFF  AND  THE  ACT  OF  1 85  7 14! 

tations,  and  to  36.88  per  cent  on  the  dutiable,  on  the 
business  of  1844. 

The  question  again  came  before  Congress  in  1845, 
it  being  evident  for  some  time  before  the  opening  of 
the  session  tliat  an  effort  would  be  made  to  revise  the 
tariff  of  1842.  The  minimum  principle  and  specific 
duties,  two  principles  of  that  tariff,  were  opposed  by 
both  President  Polk  and  his  secretary  of  >the  treasury, 
Robert  J.  Walker.  England  was  agitating  the  re- 
peal of  the  Corn  Laws  and  vigorously  preaching  free 
trade  doctrines  to  the  world.  Mr.  Walker  imbibed 
the  spirit  of  the  leaders  of  this  movement  and  became 
their  disciple.  The  president  in  his  message  to  Con- 
gress violently  attacked  the  tariff  of  1842,  and  the 
report  of  the  secretary  which  followed  sustained  the 
position  there  taken.  This  report  by  Mr.  Walker^ 
was  the  inspiration  of  the  tariff  of  1846,  and  is  con- 
sidered an  important  paper  in  our  revenue  history. 
In  making  his  recommendations  for  a revision  of 
the  tariff  he  was  governed  by  these  principles: 

1.  That  no  more  money  should  be  collected  than 
is  necessary  for  the  wants  of  the  government,  eco- 
nomically administered. 

2.  That  no  duty  be  imposed  on  any  article  above 
the  lowest  rate  which  will  yield  the  largest  amount 
of  revenue. 

3.  That  below  such  rate  discrimination  may  be 
made, descending  with  the  scale  of  duties;  or  for  im- 

1.  See  Taussig’s  “State  Papers  and  Speeches  on  the  Tariff,”  p.  214. 


THK  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


142 


perative  reasons  the  article  may  be  placed  in  the  list  of 
those  free  from  all  duties. 

4.  That  the  maximum  revenue  duty  should  be 
imposed  on  luxuries. 

5,  That  all  miniraums  and  all  specific  duties  should 
be  abolished,  and  ad  valorem  dudes  substituted  in 
their  place, — care  being  taken  to  guard  against 
fraudulent  invoices  and  undervaluation,  and  to  assess 
the  duty  upon  the  actual  market  value. 


6.  That  the  duty  should  be  so  imposed  as  to  oper- 
ate as  equally  as  possible  throughout  the  Union,  dis- 
criminating neither  for  nor  against  any  class  or 
section. 

‘‘No  horizontal  scale  of  duties  is  recommended  be- 
cause such  a scale  would  be  a refusal  to  discriminate 
for  revenue,  and  might  sink  that  revenue  below  the 
wants  of  the  government.  Some  articles  will  yield 
the  largest  revenue  at  duties  that  would  be  wholly  or 
partially  prohibitory  in  other  cases.  Luxuries,  as  a 
general  rule,  will  bear  the  highest  revenue  duties; 
but  even  some  very  costly  luxuries,  easily  smuggled, 
will  bear  but  a light  duty  for  revenue;  whilst  other 
articles  of  great  bulk  and  weight  will  bear  a higher 
duty  for  revenue.  There  is  no  instance  within  the 
knowledge  of  this  department  of  any  horizontal  tariff 
ever  having  been,  enacted  by  any  one  of  the  nations 
of  the  world.  There  must  be  discrimination  for  reve- 
nue, or  the  burden  of  taxation  must  be  augmented, 
in  order  to  bring  the  same  amount  of  money  into  the 
treasury.  It  is  difficult,  also,  to  adopt  any  arbitrary 
maximum  to  which  an  inflexible  adherence  must  be 
demanded  in  all  cases. 


THE  WALKER  TARIFF  AND  THE  ACT  OF  1 85  7 1 43 

‘‘A  protective  tariff  is  a question  regarding  the  en- 
hancement of  the  profits  of  capital.  That  is  the  ob- 
ject, and  not  to  augment  the  wages  of  labor,  which 
would  reduce  those  profits.  It  is  a question  of  per- 
centage, and  it  is  to  decide  whether  money  vested 
in  our  manufactures  shall,  by  special  legislation, 
yield  a profit  of  lo,  20,  or  30  per  cent,  or  whether  it 
shall  remain  satisfied  with  a dividend  equal  to  that 
accruing  from  the  same  capital  invested  in  agricul- 
ture, commerce,  or  navigation. 

“No  prejudice  is  felt  by  the  Secretary  ofthetreas- 
ury  against  manufactures.  His  opposition  is  to  the 
protective  system,  and  not  to  classes  or  individuals. 
He  doubts  not  that  the  manufacturers  are  sincerely 
persuaded  that  the  system  which  is  the  source  of  so 
much  profit  to  them  is  beneficial  to  the  country.  He 
entertains  a contrary  opinion,  and  claims  for  the  op- 
ponents of  the  S3^stem  a settled  conviction  of  its  in- 
jurious effects.  Whilst  a due  regard  to  the  just  and 
equal  rights  of  all  classes  forbids  a discrimination  in 
favor  of  the  manufacturers  by  duties  above  the  lowest 
revenue  limit,  no  disposition  is  felt  to  discrimi- 
nate against  them  by  reducing  such  duties  as  operate 
in  their  favor  below  that  standard.  Under  revenue 
duties,  it  is  believed,  the}^  would  still  receive  a rea- 
sonable profit — -equal  to  that  realized  by  those  engaged 
in  other'pursuits ; and  it  is  thought  they  should  desire 
no  more,  at  least  through  the  agenc}^  of  governmental 
power.  Equal  rights  and  profits,  so  far  as  laws  are 
made,  best  conform  to  the  principles  upon  which  the 
constitution  was  founded,  and  with  an  undeviating 
regard  to  which  all  its  functions  should  be  exercised, 
— looking  to  the  whole  country  and  not  to  classes  or 
sections.” 

This  report  was  severly  criticised  both  in  Con- 


144 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


gress  and  out.  The  committee  on  ways  and  means, 
with  the  help  of  the  secretary,  spent  a long  time  in 
drafting  a bill,  but  one  was  finally  reported  to  the 
House  on  April  14  by  Mr.  McKay  of  North  Caro- 
lina. The  debate  was  closed  by  agreement  on  July 
2,  when  the  bill  passed  114  to  97.  The  Senate  did 
not  vote  on  it  for  nearly  three  weeks,  and  as  that 
body  was  known  to  be  evenly  divided  in  its  opinion 
of  the  bill,  its  action  was  awaited  with  great  anxiety. 
But  it  passed  by  a very  narrow  margin  (28  to  27)  on 
July  28,  and  was  approved  by  the  president.  Im- 
ported articles  were  grouped  under  nine  schedules, 
designated  by  letters  of  the  alphabet.  The  duties 
levied  were  100  per  cent  on  spirits;  40  per  cent  on 
spices,  tobacco,  wines,  and  preserved  fruits  and 
meats;  30  per  cent  on  carpets,  cotton,  silk,  linen, 
wool,  glass,  leather,  iron  and  sugar.  Other  rates 
ranged  from  25  per  cent  down  to  five,  with  a free 
list.  In  1847  the  average  duties  collected  on  all 
importations  under  this  act  were  27.70  per  cent,  and 
they  fell  to  21.68  in  1856. 

At  the  same  session  was  passed  a bill  establishing 
the  so-called  warehouse  system.  It  provided  that 
goods  imported  might  be  deposited  in  public  stores 
without  the  payment  of  duties  and  kept  there  at  the 
charge  and  risk  of  the  owner,  importer,  or  consignee. 
If  the  duties  were  paid  at  an}^  time  within  a year, 
the  goods  were  to  be  delivered.  Or  they  were  to  be 


THE  WALKER  TARIFF  AND  THE  ACT  OF  1 85  7 1 45 

delivered  without  the  payment  of  duties  in  case  of 
reshipment,  and  on  security  being  given  that  they 
would  be  landed  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States,  This  bill  was  called  “an  adjunct  to  the  anti- 
protective  act,”  and  it  was  feared  would  greatly  re- 
duce the  revenue.  As  it  would  enable  foreigners  to 
send  goods  at  pleasure  and  store  them  in  the  ware- 
houses without  paying  the  duties  until  the  market 
suited  them,  it  was  also  called  “a  law  to  provide 
storehouses  for  foreign  goods  at  a low  rent.”  And 
large  quantities  were  imported  and  stored  until  the 
first  of  the  following  December,  when  the  new  tariff 
went  into  effect  and  the  advantage  of  low  duties  was 
secured. 

Under  this  act  revenue  was  the  end  and  protection 
an  incident, but  the  latter  element  proved  large  enough 
to  make  the  revenue  more  than  sufficient  for  the 
needs  of  the  government.  Yet  it  was  too  low  to 
afford  the  protection  needed  by  many  industries.  It 
continued  in  force  until  1857,  when  a bill  was  passed 
making  a further  reduction  o£  twenty  to  twenty-five 
per  cent,  and  greatly  enlarging  the  free  list.  The 
duties  were  now  lower  than  they  had  been  since  the 
war  of  1812,  and  the  act  was  well  received  by  the 
people  generally.  But  almost  immediately  after  its 
passage  there  was  a heavy  increase  in  importations, 
and  a very  heavy  drain  upon  the  reserved  specie  of 
the  country  followed,  as  the  shipment  of  agricultural 


146  THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 

products  failed  to  equal  the  imports.  About  six 
months  later  a disastrous  financial  panic  swept  over 
the  country,  affecting  all  industries  in  about  the  same 
degree.  It  was  possibly  less  severe  than  that  of  1837, 
but  business  of  all  kinds  was  practically  at  a stand- 
still until  i860,  and  the  expenses  of  the  government 
exceeded  its  receipts.  Maufacturers  demanded  an 
increase  of  duties  for  the  purpose  of  reviving  busi- 
ness, and  the  needs  of  the  government  likewise  called 
for  it.  The  president  (Buchanan)  in  his  message  to 
Congress  recommended  specific  instead  of  ad  valorem 
duties  as  the  best  means  of  securing  the  revenue 
against  false  and  fraudulent  invoices.  But  this  was 
in  exact  opposition  to  the  policj^  to  which  the  Demo- 
cratic party  was  committed,  and  that  party  being  in 
the  majorit}^  in  Congress,  ail  attempts  to  revive  and 
increase  the  tariff  were  unsuccessful.  A few  days 
before  the  close  of  the  session  a motion  was  made  to 
suspend  the  rules  to  allow  the  introduction  of  a bill 
for  that  purpose,  but  it  failed  to  receive  the  two-thirds 
vote  required.  As  one  would  naturally  infer,  the 
principal  objection  was  from  the  south.  The  vote 
on  the  motion  stood:  free  states,  iii  yeas,  22  nays; 
slave  states,  17  yeas,  66  nays.  Of  those  supporting 
the  motion,  but  31  were  professed  friends  of  the  ad- 
ministration. 

the  purpose  had  been  deliberate  to  drive  gold 
out  of  the  country,  it  could  not  have  been  more  effect- 


THE  WALKER  TARIFF  AND  THE  ACT  OF  1 85  7 1 47 

uall}'  carried  out  than  by  the  tariffs  of  1846  and  1857,” 
says  Ellis  H*  Roberts.^  Under  the  latter  the  govern- 
ment receipts  v^^ere  reduced  so  much  that  it  was  onl}^ 
b}^  great  difficulty  that  sufficient  monej^  could  be  ob- 
tained to  meet  the  daily  demands  on  the  treasury. 
So  great  was  the  need  that  on  December  27,  1857, 
Congress  passed  an  act  authorizing  an  issue  of  $20,- 
000,000  in  treasury  notes.  And  in  addition  a $20,000,- 
000  stock  loan  became  necessary  the  next  June. 
Howell  Cobb,  the  secretary  of  the  treasury,  recom- 
mended an  increase  of  duties,  but  Congress  did 
nothing;  and  in  the  following  September  a loan  of 
$10,000,000  was  called  for.  However,  capitalists 
were  unwilling  to  invest  in  United  States  stocks  at 
par  under  the  conditions  then  existing.  $11,000,- 
000  of  the  authorized  stock  had  not  been  issued,  and 
the  secretarj^  thought  it  almost  certain  that  it  could 
not  be  negotiated  upon  terms  satisfactory  to  the 
government.  When  Congress  met  in  December  he 
urged  immediate  action  for  the  relief  of  the  treasur}  , 
and  the  issue  of  $10,000,000  in  treasury  notes  in  lieu 
of  $11,000,000  of  stock  was  authorized. 

The  financial  affairs  of  the  government  continued 
to  grow  worse,  the  indebtedness  increasing  so  steadily 
and  so  rapidly  as  to  greatly  affect  the  public  credit. 
On  July  ly  i860,  the  debt  amounted  to  $64, 769, 703.- 
08,  with  a balance  in  the  treasury  of  but  $3,629,- 
206.71.  This  large  increase  (from  $29,060,386.90 

1.  "Government  Revenue,”  p,  114. 


148 


THE  AMERICAN  TARIFF 


on  July  I,  1857)  was  due  solely  to  the  reduction  of 
the  revenues  to  an  absurdly  low  point.  Secretary 
Cobb  resigned  some  time  after  making  his  report, 
and  was  succeeded  by  Philip  F,  Thomas  of  Mary- 
land, and  he  was  in  turn  succeeded  a month  later  by 
General  John  A.  Dix,  who  served  until  the  end  of 
Buchanan’s  term.  Another  bill  was  passed,  author- 
izing a loan  of  $25, 000, 000, and  instructing  the  presi- 
dent to  borrow  that  amount  at  any  time  before  July  i, 
1861.  Bonds  were  issued  to  the  amount  of  $18,- 
415,000,  at  an  aggregate  discount  of  $2,019,776. 10, 
or  at  an  average  rate  of  $89,03  per  hundred  dollars. 


APPENDIX  A. 


During  the  period  from  i86i  to  1883,  inclusive, 
according  to  Hon.  Ellis  H.  Roberts,^  forty-one  tariff 
laws  were  enacted,  most  of  which  were  brief  and  of 
little  importance.  Seven  of  them  were  ‘^of  vital 
consequence,  first  in  bringing  in  money,  and  then  in 
reducing  the  surplus  revenue.  The  total  space  in 
the  books  devoted  to  the  statutes  bearing  on  duties 
within  this  period  is  one  hundred  and  forty-three 
pages,  but  the  important  acts  cover  less  than  half 
this  matter.”  The  dates  and  purposes  of  these  acts 
Mr.  Roberts  gives  as  follows: 

nJ  March  2,  1861,  Morrill  tariff,  to  provide  for  out- 
standing treasury  notes,  to  authorize  a loan,  and  to 
regulate  and  fix  the  duties  on  imports,  twenty  pages. 

August  5,  1861,  to  provide  increased  revenue  from 
imports,  etc, ; the  tariff  sections  occupy  nearly  three 
pages. 

December  24,  1861,  to  increase  the  duties  on  tea, 
coffee  and  sugar,  one-half  page. 

July  14,  1862,  increasing  temporarily  the  duties  on 
imports,  seventeen  and  one-half  pages. 

March  3,  1863,  modif^dng  duties,  one  page. 

June  30,  1864,  to  increase  duties,  sixteen  pages. 

March  3,  1865,  amendments,  two  and  one-half 
pages. 

March  14,  1866,  extending  time  for  goods  in  ware- 
house, one-half  page. 

March  29,  1866,  to  amend  the  duties  on  wool,  one- 
eighth  page. 

1.  “Government  Revenue,”  p.  118, 


149 


APPENDIX  A 


150 

Mety  16,  1866,  imposing  a duty  on  live  animals, 
nine  lines. 

July  28,  1866,  to  protect  the  revenue,  four  pages. 

March  2,  1867,  to  provide  increased  revenue  from 
imported  wool,  three  pages. 

March  25,  1867,  levying  duties  on  umbrellas  and 
springs,  one-eighth  page. 

March  26,  1867,  admitting  certain  works  of  art 
free,  one-half  page. 

July  23,  1868,  admitting  certain  statuary  free, 
seven  lines. 

February  19,  1869,  admitting  certain  machinery 
free  for  repair  only,  one-eighth  page. 

February  24,  1869,  regulating  duties  on  copper, 
one-half  page. 

July  14,  1870,  in  the  act  reducing  internal  taxes, 
ten  pages  are  devoted  to  the  tariff. 

December  22,  1870,  amending  the  preceding  con- 
cerning imposts  on  sugar,  one-half  page. 

January  30,  1871,  of  bonded  warehouses^  one- 
fourth  page. 

February  10,  1871,  to  prevent  smuggling,  one 

page.  ^ 

March  5,  1872,  admitting  certain  works  of  art 
free,  one-eighth  page. 

April  5, 1872, admitting  goods  for  relief  of  sufferers 
by  Chicago  fire  free,  one-half  page. 

May  I,  1872,  making  tea  and  coffee  free,  nine 
lines. 

June  6,  1872,  to  reduce  imposts,  eight  pages. 

June  10,  1872,  to  refund  certain  duties,  one-eighth 
page. 

February  14,  1873,  to  refund  certain  differential 
duties,  one-half  page. 

March  I,  1873,  to  carry  into  effect  the  treaty  of 
Washington,  one  and  three-fourths  pages. 


APPENDIX  A 


I5I 


March  3,  1873,  brief  ameiidiiients,  one  page. 

May  9,  1874,  relative  to  imported  fruits,  one- 
fourth  page. 

June  3,  1874, extending  time  benefits  of  refund- 
ing acts, one-fourth  page. 

June  18,  1874,  admitting  free  articles  for  the  Cen- 
tennial Exhibition,  one-fourth  page. 

June  22,  1874,  to  repeal  moieties,  six  pages. 

February  8,  1875,  to  amend  existing  customs 
duties,  two  and  one-fourth  pages. 

March  3,  1875,  to  protect  the  sinking  fund,  one 
and  two-thirds  pages. 

March? 3,  1875,  to  restrict  refunding  of  duties,  one 

August  15,  1876, to  carry  into  effect  the  Hawaiian 
treaty,  one-half  page. 

July  20,  1876,  imposing  penalties  for  selling  with- 
out paying  duties  articles  from  the  Centennial  Ex- 
hibition, one-half  page. 

July  I,  1879,  making  quinine  free,  five  lines. 

June  14,  1880,  relative  to  duties  on  hoop-iron, 
three-fourths  page. 

May  4,  1882,  concerning  discriminating  duties  be- 
yond the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  one-eighth  page. 

March  3,  1883,  in  the  act  to  reduce  internal  tax- 
ation, and  for  other  purposes,  thirty-six  pages  relate 
to  duties.  Act  of  the  Tariff  Commission. 


APPENDIX  B. 


Mr.  Roberts  gives  the  following  table  of  rates  on 
total  importations:^ 


Under  the^ 

1 

Lowest  ) 

Highest  / 

tariff  of  \ 

per 

■ cent.''" 

per 

' cent.) 

1790 

11-54 

in 

1792. 

30.67 

in 

1802. 

1804 

14.07 

in 

1810. 

37-22 

in 

1807. 

1812 

6.84 

in 

1815. 

69.03 

in 

1813. 

1816 

16.78 

in 

1818. 

47-72 

in 

1824. 

1824 

44-74 

in 

1828. 

50.94 

in 

1827. 

1828 

44-23 

in 

1832. 

50.73 

in 

1830. 

1832 

28.99 

in 

1833- 

1833 

17-37 

in 

1841. 

21.83 

in 

1834. 

1842 

20. 13 

in 

1842. 

30.50 

in 

1844. 

1846 

19.09 

in 

1856. 

43-49 

in 

1848. 

1857 

14.21 

in 

1861. 

17,32 

in 

1858. 

1861 

00 

0 

in 

1862. 

46.55 

in 

1869. 

“The  rate  has  not  exceeded  thirty  per  cent  since 
1876  on  total  importations.  Since  1821,  when,  on 
dutiable  articles,  the  rate  was  30.99,  the  lowest  rate 
on  such  articles  was  in  1861,  18.84.  Except  tl:!at 
3’ear,the  lowest  was  in  1859,  19.56, and  the  highest  in 
1830,  61.69,  Since  1861  the  lowest  rate  on  dutiable 
commodities  was  in  1873,  38.14,  and  the  highest  in 
.1869,  48.69  per  cent. 

“Under  the  tariff  of  the  Commission  the  rates  are 
42.08  on  dutiable  goods. 

“The  highest  average  rate  of  duties  ever  collected 

r Loc.  cit.,  p.  127. 


152 


APPENDIX  B 


153 


by  the  United  States  was  in  ‘1813,  after  the  opening 
of  the  war  with  Great  Britain, and  that  rate  was  69.03 
per  cent.  The  lowest  average  rate  was  in  1815, 
the  close  of  that  war, 6.84  per  cent, when  the  importa- 
tions were  multiplied  nearly  nine  times  in  a single 
year.  These  great  changes  occurred  by  the  varia- 
tions in  commerce,  without  the  modification  of  a sin- 
gle letter  in  the  statutes. 

‘‘The  average  duties  on  total  importations  have 
never  exceeded  fifty  per  cent  since  1829,  when  they 
rose  to  57^33  per  cent,  nor  have  they  ever  exceeded 
fifty  percent  on  dutiable  articles  since  the  same  year, 
when  they  amounted  to  61.69  cent.  During  the 
free  trade  period  they  ranged  on  dutiable  articles 
from  19.56  in  1859  to  27.38  in  1852. 

“Under  the  tariffs  of  the  civil  war,  the  average 
duties  on  dutiable  articles  have  never  exceeded  48.96 
per  cent,  the  rate  in  1868,  and  they  have  never  fallen 
below  32.62,  the  rate  in  1862.  On  the  total  importa- 
tions the  maximum  rate  was  reached  in  1869, at  46.55, 
and  after  the  check  of  the  war,  the  minimum  in  1880, 
at  29.78.” 


INDEX. 


Adams,  J.  Q.,  Tariff  bill  of, 
118;  motion  i*egarding  Ty- 
ler’s “ditto”  veto,  140. 

^dams,  Prof.,  on  the  political 
origin  of  the  doctrine  of  pro- 
tection, 27. 

Anderson  of  Me.  on  the  duty 
on  hemp,  100. 

Baltimore,  Petition  of  the 
business  men  of,  to  the  first 
Congress,  8. 

Bank,  National,  Hamilton’s 
report  on,  36. 

Benton,  Senator,  on  the  com- 
promise of  1833,  132. 

“Bloody  Bill,”  133. 

Holies,  Prof.,  quoted,  7. 

Brougham,  Henry  (Lord),  on 
American  industry  in  1812, 
64. 

Buchanan  recommended  spe- 
cific duties,  146. 

Bushnell,  Dr.  Horace,  on 
American  industry  in  1812, 
63. 

Business  affairs  in  1789,  7. 

Butler,  Senator,  of  S.  C., 
threatened  dissolution  of 
the  Union  in  1789,  15. 

Cabinet  members.  Origin  of 
the  custom  of  their  reports 
being  made  in  writing,  29. 

Calhoun  a protectionist  in 
1816,  70;  injured  politically 
by  Van  Buren’s  “dodge,” 
94. 

Clay  a protectionist  in  1816, 
70;  supported  the  act  of 


1824,  76,  80;  introduced  the 
compromise  bill  of  1833, 
128. 

Coleman,  Dr.,  Letter  of  Jack- 
son  to,  89. 

Colleton  district,  S.  C.,  ad- 
dress of  the  citizens  of,  to 
the  people  of  the  state,  106. 

Commerce,  Foreign,  Jeffer- 
son’s report  on,  52. 

Corn  Laws,  the  English,  141. 

Cotton  manufacturers,  their 
petitions  to  Congress,  70. 

Dallas,  Secretary,  Recom- 
mendations of,  1815,  67;  re- 
port by,  1816,  68. 

Democratic  party  advocated 
protection  in  1816,  70. 

Duties  proposed  by  the  Con- 
tinental Congress  in  1783, 
11,  note;  tonnage  act  of 
1789,  28;  increase  advocated 
by  Hamilton,  34.  (See  Pro- 
tection and  Tariff.) 

Finances,  Condition  of,  in 
1789,  7;  1857  and  1860,  147. 

“Force  Bill,”  133. 

Franklin  on  New  England 
occupations  in  1789,  25. 

Georgia,  The  act  of  1828  de- 
nounced by,  111. 

Grayson,  Senator,  Letter 
from,  to  Patrick  Henry  on 
the  first  tariff  bill,  19. 

Hamilton  and  the  tariff,  29; 
first  report  on  the  public 


INDEX 


155 


credit,  30;  effect  of  this  re- 
port, 38;  advocated  an  in- 
crease of  duties,  34;  second 
report  on  the  public  credit, 
34;  reports  on  the  national 
bank,  mint,  and  manufact- 
ures, 36;  his  financial  policy, 
49. 

Harrisburg  convention,  95. 

Ilayne  on  the  inability  of  the 
south  to  manufacture,  104; 
opposed  protection,  113;  de- 
bate with  Webster,  114, 

Hemp,  The  duty  on,  100. 

Henry,  Patrick,  Letter  from 
Senator  Grayson  to,  on  the 
first  tariff  bill,  19. 

Indiana,  Resolution  of  the 
state  senate  of,  addressed 
to  Jackson,  87. 

fndnstrial  conditions  in  1789, 
25;  in  1812,  64;  under  the  act 
of  1824,  91;  under, the  act  of 
1833,  135;  under  the  act  of 
1S57,  146. 

Jackson  and  the  tariff,  87;  let- 
ter to  Dr.  Coleman,  89; 
views  expressed  in  his  mes- 
sage of  1829,  113;  recom- 
mended reduction  of  duties, 
116;  recommended  revision 
of  the  tariff,  126. 

Jeffei^son,  Letter  from  Madi- 
son to,  on  the  first  tariff  bill, 
17;  his  position  regarding 
the  tariff,  51;  report  on  for- 
eign commerce,  52;  recom- 
mended reciprocity  in  1793, 
53;  extract  from  his  second 
inaugural,  61;  said  by  Sena- 
tor Hayne  not  to  have  fa- 
vored protection,  113. 

Livingston,  Edward,  author 
of  Jackson’s  proclamation 
to  the  people  of  S.  C.,  124. 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot,  on  Ham- 
ilton’s first  report  on  the 
public  credit,  29;  on  his  re- 


port on  manufactures,  37 ; 
on  his  financial  policy,  49. 

Lyndliurst,  Lord,  quo  ted,  64. 

McDuffie  of  S.  C.  advocated 
reduction  of  duties,  115;  in- 
troduced a revenue  tariff* 
bill,  116. 

“McKinley  Bill,”  23. 

McLane,  Secretary,  Report  on 
the  tariff  by,  117. 

Maclay,  Senator,  on  the  Sen- 
ate debates  on  the  first  tar- 
iff bill,  14. 

Madison  introduced  the  first 
tariff  bill  into  Congress,  10; 
in  theory  a free  trader,  13; 
letter  to  Jefferson  on  his  bill. 
17;  to  Edmund  Pendleton, 
18;  introduced  resolutions 
based  on  Jefferson’s  recom- 
mendations, 54;  recom- 
mended a tariff  for  both  rev- 
enue and  protection,  66. 

Mallary  of  Yt.  introduced  the 
“woolens  bill,”  92:  on 
fraudulent  evasion  of  the 
tariff  laws,  115. 

Manufactures,  Hamilton’s  re- 
port on,  37 ; Dr.  Buslinell  on, 
63;  Henry  (Lord)  Brough- 
am on,  64;  in  the  south  in 
1828,  104;  injured  by  the 
compromise  of  1833,  135. 

“Minimum”  principle,  93,  141. 

Mint,  Hamilton’s  report  on, 
36. 

Molasses,  quantity  imported 
into  New  England,  100. 

Monroe  on  the  encouragement 
of  home  industry,  72. 

Morse,  John  T.,  Jr.,  on  Ham- 
ilton’s report  on  manufact- 
ures, 37. 

Napoleon's  Berlin  and  Milan 
Decrees,  62. 

New  England,  Occupations 
of,  in  1789,  25;  her  position 
after  the  war  of  1812,  65: 


156 


INDEX 


voted  largely  for  protection 
In  1824,  76;  favored  it  in 
1828,  104;  Webster-Hayne 
debate,  114. 

Niles’  analysis  of  the  vote  on 
the  act  of  1824,  78. 

Non-intercourse  law,  62. 

North  Carolina  exempted 
from  the  provisions  of  the 
act  of  1789,  28. 

Nullitication,  105;  hinted  by 
Ga.,  Ill;  S.  C.’s  ordinance, 
121 ; repealed,  133. 

Orders  in  Council,  The  Brit- 
ish, 62. 

Panic  of  1837,  135;  of  1857, 
146. 

Pendleton,  Edmund,  Letter 
from  Madison  to,  on  the  first 
tariff  bill,  18. 

Pennsylvania  led  the  contest 
for  protection  in  1824,  76. 

Pennsylvania  Society  for  the 
Promotion  of  Manufactures 
and  the  Mechanic  Arts,  94. 

Protection,  Political  origin  of 
the  doctrine  of,  27;  recom- 
mended by  Madison,  66;  ad- 
vocates and  opponents  of,  in 
1816,  70;  advocated  by  Mon- 
roe, 72;  opposed  by  the  south 
in  1824,  76;  the  contest  led 
by  Pa.  in  1824,  76;  protection 
first  given  by  the  act  of  1824, 
77;  resolutions  of  a conven- 
tion at  Albany,  N.  Y.,  96; 
protection  advocated  by 
Webster,  104;  opposed  by 
Hayne,  113:  by  McDuffie. 
115;  Jackson’s  views  at  the 
end  of  1832,  126.  (See  Du- 
ties and  Tariff.) 

Public  credit,  Hamilton’s  first 
report  on,  30;  effect  of  this 
report,  33;  second  report,  34; 
in  1857  and  1860,  147. 

Randolph,  John,  opposed  pro- 


tection, 70;  opposed  the  bill 
of  1828,  101. 

Reciprocity  recommended  by 
Jefferson  in  1793,  53. 

Rhode  Island  exempted  from 
the  provisions  of  the  act  of 
1789,  28. 

Roberts,  Ellis  H.,  on  the  acds 
of  1846  and  1857,  146;  on  the 
acts  from  1861  to  1883,  149; 
on  the  rates  on  total  im- 
portations, 152. 

Smith  of  S.  C.  opposed  Madi- 
son’s resolutions,  54;  pre- 
sented the  protest  of  S.  C. 
against  the  act  of  1828,  112. 

South  Carolina,  Position  of, 
regarding  the  tariff  in  1789, 
23;  nullification,  105;  pro- 
tested against  the  act  of 
1828,  112;  declared  the  acts 
of  1828  and  1832  null  and 
void,  122;  repealed  the  nulli- 
fication ordinance,  133. 

Story,  Justice,  Extract  from, 
23. 

Tariff.— The  first  tariff  act,  7 ; 
petition  of  the  business  men 
of  Baltimore  praying  fo'r  a 
tariff  law,  9;  first  bill  intro- 
duced into  the  House,  10: 
character  of  debate  on,  12, 
15;  signed  by  the  president, 
16;  rates  fixed  by  the  act, 
20;  its  purpose,  22;  did  it 
protect?  23;  a defect  pointed 
out  by  Hamilton,  24;  acts  of 
1791,  51,  52;  of  1792,  52;from 
1794  to  1808,  60;  early  tariff 
laws  failed  to  protect,  61; 
the  act  of  1812,  62;  the  au- 
thors of  the  early  tariff 
laws,  63;  a tariff  for  both 
revenue  and  protection  rec- 
ommended by  Madison.  00; 
recommendations  of  Secre- 
tary Dallas,  67,  68;  act  of 


INDEX 


157 


1816,  70:  bill  of  the  session 
of  1819-20,  74;  act  of  1824, 
75;  Jackson  and  the  tariff, 
87;  the  “woolens  bill,”  92; 
act  of  1828,  99;  nullification, 
105;  hinted  by  Georgia,  111; 
Jackson’s  message  to  Con- 
gress in  1829,  118;  act  for 
more  effectual  collection  of 
duties,  115;  acts  reducing 
duties,  116;  revenue  tariff 
bill,  116;  Secretary  Mc- 
Lane’s  report  and  bill,  117; 
J.  Q.  Adams’  bill,  118;  minor 
acts  from  1813  to  1833,  120; 
S.  C.  adopted  an  ordinance 
of  nullification,  121;  revision 
of  the  tariff,  126;  adminis- 
tration’s bill,  127;  Clay’s 
compromise  of  1833,  128;  its 
character  and  effect,  132, 
135;  “Force  Bill,”  133;  bill 
of  House  committee  on  man- 
ufactures, 137;  a revenue 
tariff  recommended  by  Sec- 
retary Forward,  138;  an 
emergency  bill  passed  and 
vetoed,  138;  act  of  1842,  140; 
Walker  tariff,  141;  ware- 
house bill,  144;  act  of  1857, 
145;  list  of  acts  passed  from 
1861  to  1883,  149;  table  of 


rates  on  total  importations, 
152.  (See  Duties  and  Pro* 
tection.) 

Taussig,  Prof.,  on  the  com- 
promise of  1833,  132. 

Thompson,  Prof.,  on  the  au- 
thors of  early  tariff  legisla- 
tion, 63. 

Tonnage  duties,  act  of  1789, 
28. 

Treasury,  national.  Condition 
of  the,  in  1789,  7;  treasury 
department  established,  29. 

Van  Buren  “dodged”  a vote 
on  the  “woolens  bill,”  94. 

Verplanck’s  bill,  127;  Clay’s 
compromise  substituted  for 
it,  131. 

Walker  tariff,  141. 

Warehouse  bill,  144. 

Webster  opposed  to  protection 
in  1816,  70;  and  in  1824,  76, 
83;  favored  it  in  1828,  104; 
debate  with  Hayne,  114;  op- 
posed the  compromise  of 
1833,  130. 

Wool  industries  suffered  un- 
der the  act  of  1824,  77; 
“woolens  bill,”  92;  report  of 
House  committee  on  manu- 
factures, 98. 


i 


■■-  ■'■  r ' / ' ..‘YH’' 

>1 


^ vv-.r- /' '4f^ 


